Water

Rhetoric is an amazing tool.  It has the potential to change entire perspectives on any given issue if presented in the right way.  Rhetoric is neither inherently good, nor inherently evil.  It is simply a part of our lives and we must choose an appropriate way to respond.  The beauty of rhetoric lies in the fact that people’s opinions can be altered solely based upon how an argument is presented.  Rhetorical tools are the key to a successful argument and some are more effective than others depending on the context.  Joshua Ortega published an article in the Seattle Times in which he addresses the problems with the United States’ water consumption habits.  He feels that the utilization of bottled water out of convenience as opposed to necessity is depleting the world’s water supply.  Even if you do not personally agree with his opinion, Josh uses a heavy appeal to pathos by scaring his audience into a deep concern for their future.

Because this article was published in the Seattle Times the author knew he was writing to a very liberal audience.  This means they would be very willing and ready to act on anything he proposed to help the environment.  His tactic was scaring them.  Evidence of this first appears in the very beginning paragraphs.  Right off the bat Josh cites a four year study by the National Resources Defense Council.  They found that one-fifth of all the bottled waters that they tested had neurotoxins and carcinogens.  Then right after that he cites yet another study by the NRDC stating that out of 103 brands of bottled water tested, one-third contained arsenic and E. coli.  This is new information to most people.  Josh tells us that for one reason or another many americans feel that just because it’s bottled means it’s safe.  We think that since it’s packaged up it must be clean.  That is why he gives his audience these studies.  They now know that bottled water isn’t in reality much better than the tap.  That is the entire goal of his article.  

In order to further his liberal audiences concern for their future, Josh talks about the environmental hazards associated with bottled water.  On the second page of his article he gives his readers some background information on polyethylene terephthalate, or (PET).  He informs his audience that this is the most common plastic that is used in water bottle manufacturing.  He makes sure that they know how environmentally unfriendly this plastic is.  This works to his advantage because he knew ahead of time that the majority of people who read the Seattle Times are liberal.  His ability to recognize what will tug at their heart strings makes this article so effective.  As he continues to speak on the topic of this PET he brings up a fact that liberals and conservatives alike will find shocking.  He states that 17.5 Kilograms of water is required to produce just one Kilogram of PET.  Now this doesn’t exactly strike us as groundbreaking right away but in the next sentence he says that in fact it takes more water to make the plastic than is actually in each bottle.   Whether you are liberal or not this fact should scare you.  Let us exaggerate a little and say that in order to make one water bottle it takes exactly the same amount of water that is inside.  That means that if we could eliminate bottled water, the world’s supply would double.  That is good economics no matter what political affiliation one has.  In addition to all of this Josh continues to harp on the environmental effects of the production of this plastic.  Remember that most of his audience will be liberal therefore he knows that this is going to be most likely one of his strongest appeals to pathos.  He goes on to talk about the numerous byproducts that come from this production process.  To show this he uses statistics from a reliable source.  He cites the Container Recycling Institute.  They reported that in 2002 over 14 billion water bottles were sold in the United States but only ten percent were ever recycled.  That means that 12.6 billion bottles of plastic ended up in our landfills.  The sad thing is, Josh reminds us, that these 12.6 billion bottles contained water that was, “no more-and often less-healthy than tap water.”

Something that Josh also did a great job of in his article was addressing possible counter arguments.  He admits that yes there are some circumstances where bottled water would be appropriate: in underdeveloped countries where there really is no other source of drinkable water.  This confession gives the author credibility by appealing to ethos.  The audience does not feel like they are being attacked rather, they feel that Josh really does care about the environment.  He realizes that sometimes it is appropriate to have bottled water, just not when it is used as a luxury.  At this point he has his audience right where he wants them.  They trust his opinion and feel that he really wants what’s best for the world.  Josh knows this and takes this opportunity to add some more salt to the wound.  

Josh now turns his audience against big corporations.  Again keep in mind that his readers are mostly made up of liberals.  They don’t like big companies controlling resources and a lot of money.  Josh knows this and talks about the privatization of water and how it is all privately owned by just a few companies.  This angers his audience and makes them feel cheated.  on the fourth page we read, “Water corporations exist to make profits-not to preserve water’s quality or affordability.”  That is a dagger.  All these years people have believed that Aquafina and Dasani were selling water because they truly wanted their consumers to have the safest, most affordable water around.  Well clearly based on the facts presented earlier it’s not much safer than tap, and they definitely don’t care about affordability.  Once again regardless of political affiliation, (unless you work for a water company) this makes everyone reconsider where they are putting their money.  People do not like being taken advantage of, it’s in our nature.  Most people just want equality and the water companies are not providing that.  In the conclusion of this article Josh injects the final poison.  “The wars of the next century will be about water.”  This is a quote by Ismail Serageldin, the former vice president of the World Bank.  War has a very touchy connotation and it strikes fear in the hearts of readers.  The last thing we as a people want is war.  As we get closer to the end of the article we read, “Water, however, is a necessity.  Taking away your water is the same thing as putting a gun to your head.”  Powerful imagery of someone placing a gun up to their head.  Is that an inappropriate analogy?  If we lose all of our water we will die, if you shoot yourself you will die.  It may be extreme but that’s exactly what it is supposed to be.  After reading that line the audience is once again struck with fear.  The thought of not having water and potentially dying is a disconcerting emotion for all.

Josh did an amazing job of picking out ways to touch his audience.  As noted many of his readers are liberal so he was able to decide what arguments would work best for them.  He was able to present facts and arguments that he knew his audience would agree with and support.  The reason this article was so effective was because of his scare tactics.  No one likes to feel threatened.  People will respond if they are in danger.  That is exactly how Josh was trying to make his readers feel and he did an outstanding job.