Reading Comprehension Success in 20 Minutes a Day, 3rd Edition

–
E M O T I O N A L V E R S U S L O G I C A L A P P E A L S
–
1 3 3

---

The author’s second argument is that the people
who support mandatory recycling also supported a failed
program to increase city bus routes. Is there any logic in
this statement? No, not if we bear in mind that the
point of the argument is the recycling program and not
the bus route program. Readers who are sympathetic to
the underlying message that many government pro-
grams are wasteful may get caught up in the emotion
of their opinion and lose sight of the fact that the
author is not even talking about the proposed manda-
tory recycling plan. The argument is designed to suc-
ceed by appealing to this underlying sympathetic
response rather than by addressing the merits and
demerits of the proposal being considered.
The third argument is that a mandatory recycling
program would not actually cause people who do not
presently recycle to begin recycling. Again, the author
offers no evidence for his claim. Instead, he works on
his readers’ sense of shame about their own failure to
comply with local ordinances or on their cynicism
about whether their fellow citizens will comply with
such rules. He doesn’t offer evidence that people won’t
comply, or that the law enforcement authorities will be
ineffective in forcing compliance, instead suggesting
that the proposed program would be an undue burden,
forcing good people to act “surreptitious,” or stealthy,
about everyday, innocent actions. Again, he avoids sup-
porting his argument with logic, reason, or evidence.
Practice Passage 2
Now look at another argument for the same position.
Notice how much more logical this essay is—whether
you agree with the author—simply because the author
gives explanations and evidence for his position rather
than appealing solely to the readers’ emotions.
The City Council of Ste. Jeanne should reject
mandatory recycling. Although many good people
support this idea, the proposal facing us is so deeply
flawed that I believe their support is misplaced.
The most glaring problem is that the mandatory
recycling program proposed here would create at
least as much pollution as it would eliminate. Our
neighbors in Youngsville could testify to that:
Greensleaves Recycling, the proposed contractor,
got the recycling contract in Youngsville five years
ago, and their machinery spewed so much toxic gas
out of its smokestacks that the city government
stopped all recycling, mandatory or optional, for a
solid year.
One of the biggest concerns people have is that
the bottles and cans they throw away today will
either accumulate in unsightly, unsanitary landfills
or go up in smoke from an incinerator. But the fact
of the matter is that new waste treatment facilities in
nearby counties soon will eliminate most of the
need for landfills and incinerators. By compacting
unsorted trash into blocks comparable in hardness
to concrete, the new facilities make it available for
use in building foundations, dikes, and road con-
struction. This form of “recycling” — not part of the
present proposal — doesn’t require us to collect the
garbage in any new way because it doesn’t matter
whether the content is coffee grounds or juice
bottles.
An argument in favor of the recycling pro-
posal for which I have some sympathy is that
mandatory recycling will raise people’s awareness of
our beautiful and fragile environment. Reflecting
on this, however, I recalled our wonderful educa-
tional programs, both in the schools and in the mass
media. Voluntary recycling is at an all-time high
level of participation; both anglers and environ-
mentalists are celebrating the recent reopening of the
Ste. Jeanne Waterway to fishing; downtown Ste.
Jeanne won the “Greening of the State” award just
last year. Taken together, these facts suggest to me a
populace already deeply engaged with environmen-
tal issues and now looking hard for new, well-
conceived proposals to do even more. The present
proposal simply doesn’t measure up to our city’s
high standards.