My issue is oil drilling in Arches:
I myself am an avid visitor of Arches National Park. It is one of my favorite places in the entire world because you can go there and forget about all your worldly cares and just reflect on all the miracles that God has blessed us with. In my opinion, Arches is one of greatest gems in nature. The question that I’m going to pose today is this, “What is more valuable? Preserving our one-of-a-kind landmark, or an increased economy?” But in order to answer this question, we must first examine exactly how much will drilling actually help out the economy. According to a recent analysis of Utah oil and gas production, leasing, and future resources, “Utah's known petroleum reserves have been estimated at little more than 1 percent of those in the entire United States. Its natural gas reserves are estimated at 2.5 percent of the country's. Cast another way, ‘the total amount of oil and gas in or near the existing areas of large-scale production is estimated at 912 MMBO and 10.68 TCF respectively -- enough oil to supply the country for less than seven weeks and enough natural gas to supply the country for about five and a half months.’” Another point to consider is whether or not Utah will actually see all that oil that we are hauling out. Kurt Repanshek of the National Parks Traveler brings up a good point. He said, “After all, just because oil and natural gas come out of the U.S. reserves doesn't necessarily mean it will be consumed within this country.” So is it worth it to drill in for only a minute percentage of the country’s oil reserves when it might not even be consumed within the United States? You tell me.
Ok so I realize this is a rough draft and it is exactly that- rough! But I tried to use pathos and ethos a little in the beginning and then go straight into logos with the facts and stuff. How was my smoothness and transitioning? Do you think my arguments are legit?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Your transition really is good. Your appeals are effective, and the way you do first emotion and then logic gives the impressions that you are first, deeply invested and sincerely concerned, and second, legitimately informed.
I would be careful with statements such as "you tell me". I know it is an Op-Ed but you should be communicating YOUR ideas to the reader. Use rhetoric to try and get them to say what YOU want them to say. The argument is well grounded though and I agree with you 100%.
I thought your transition was very effective and was a good way to draw the reader into your paper. I think you should address other reasons why people wouldn't agree with you though. There are many reasons besides having gas money be cheaper.
Thanks for all your comments guys. I ended up changing the bit about "you tell me." And I also will explore the opposing arguments as much as possible and try to add it into my final draft.
Post a Comment