Rhetorical Analysis Of Paul Bogard's Misunderstood

419 Words2 Pages
Paul Bogard uses a vast amount of pathos and logos to inform his crowd about light pollution. Paul Bogard starts with a story about when he was younger. He went to his family’s cabin in Minnesota and he learned many things about the natural darkness they had there. He uses the example pathologically to persuade readers about how natural darkness is beautiful. He also talks about how humans are “rapidly” losing natural darkness before they “realize it's worth” and how darkness has an “irreplaceable value.” These phrases he uses are very strong pathological diction. Bogard also states at the end of the passage, “But we will never truly address the problem of light pollution until we become aware of the irreplaceable value and beauty of the darkness…show more content…
Bogard states “already the world health organization classifies working the night shift as a probable human carcinogen.” he also says “Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin.” Both phrases use logic to persuade the audience. Humans need melatonin, because it “keeps cetain cancers from developing.” Paul states “sleep disorders have been linked to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and depression.” This phrase shows that humans may have a disease because of the lack of sleep. He also states “there isn't a place for this much light in our lives.” This phrase uses logic to make a claim that humans should not have as much light. Bogard also uses many examples showing that our light affects our ecosystem as well. Paul shows that animals and the ecosystem need darkness. He states that “the rest of the world depends on darkness as well, including nocturnal and crepuscular species of birds, insects, mammals, fish and reptiles.” He states examples such as “bats that save billions in pest control and the moths that pollinate 80% of the world’s flora.” both example show how there is logic in reducing light pollution. Paul Bogard is very persuasive by using pathos and logos. He states many examples about how light pollution must be reduced. He also uses very strong diction to persuade the audience to try and reduce their light pollution. As a reader, do you agree that light pollution should be

More about Rhetorical Analysis Of Paul Bogard's Misunderstood

Open Document