Question

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is home to caribou,

moose, musk oxen, wolves, foxes, grizzlies, polar bears
and migratory birds. Leaders in the oil industry believe
the refuge is the perfect site for the “environmentally
sensitive exploration” of oil. Environmentalists are
wondering: What will become of the wildlife?

President George W. Bush, oil-industry leaders and others
believe that Americans will benefit from the oil that lies
under the snow-filled surface of the refuge. In their
opinion, the oil will help reduce high fuel prices and
decrease our need for oil from other countries.

I believe the cost of such drilling is too high. I agree with
environmentalists who fear that drilling will disturb the
migration of more than 130,000 caribou. Each spring, the
caribou travel 400 miles to give birth on the coastal plain.
In this area of the refuge, there are fewer predators. In
addition, experts say that the oil in the area adds up to
less than a six-month supply. Is such a small amount of oil
worth the risk drilling poses to these animals?

Americans are the largest consumers of oil. Instead of
drilling for oil, we should decrease our need for foreign
oil simply by using less. We must all work together to cut
back on the oil we use in order to preserve the wildlife
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What type of argument is used in this paragraph?
I believe the cost of such drilling is too high. I agree with
environmentalists who fear that drilling will disturb the
migration of more than 130,000 caribou. Each spring, the
caribou travel 400 miles to give birth on the coastal plain.
In this area of the refuge, there are fewer predators. In
addition, experts say that the oil in the area adds up to
less than a six-month supply. Is such a small amount of oil
worth the risk drilling poses to these animals?
a.
appeal to emotion
c.
appeal to logic
b.
bandwagon
d.
none of the above

Answer 1

Since the author states that she "agree[s] with environmentalists" but gives no statements from scientists or environmentalists (ethos), I'm guessing the correct answer would be bandwagon. However, since the author also includes statistics and facts later in the paragraph, appeal to logic could also be correct. I would go with one of those. Sorry I can't be more definitive. Hope this is at least somewhat helpful.

Answer 2

I believe the author uses C. appeal to logic.

Step-by-step explanation:

The author is not appealing to readers' emotions, since he is not trying to make readers angry or sad - or anything - about the subject. An appeal to emotions, or pathos, is a rhetorical device employed to convince readers of the speaker's opinion by provoking feelings regarding the subject. This author is simply presenting facts to support his way of thinking.

The author is also not using bandwagon, since he does not claim that the opinion he defends is the opinion of the majority. That is what bandwagon means - to state that your opinion is the right one because most people agree with you. The author says he agrees with the environmentalists who think the drilling will be bad; he does not say they are the majority.

The author does employ an appeal to logic (logos) by presenting facts to prove his point. He provides readers with the number of caribou that travel to the coastal plain and even how far it is that they travel, only to give birth where there are fewer predators. Drilling for oil in that region would disrupt their cycle and potentially kill them, or at least prevent them from procreating. Logically speaking, six months of drilling could hardly be worth the destruction of such animals. Thus, the correct choice is letter C. appeal to logic.