Moore's Article Analysis
The greatest strength of Moore’s’ article is the fact that he has significant scientific evidence to back up his conclusions. First, he opens his article by saying that he has just come back from a scientific voyage into the Great Pacific Garbage Patch with the purpose of studying its effects. This immediately gives a sense that he understands the consequences of the object of his was writing. By asserting that he studied the area in question, he immediately lends scientific credit to his arguments. In addition, he goes on to reference several scientific studies. In order to illustrate his argument that no agency or organization has yet been able to find a way of recycling plastics that covers the vast amount that escapes into our water
…show more content…
By using this study to support his claim, Moore displays that his premises is true and scientifically supported, making this a sound argument. Soon after making this point, Moore says “We know that plastic debris entangles and slowly kills millions of sea creatures; that hundreds of species mistake plastics for their natural food, ingesting toxicants that cause liver and stomach abnormalities in fish and birds, often choking them to death.” This, along with the fact that microplasics can get back into humans through consumption of contaminated sea food are well known scientific facts. Here, Moore dos not specifically reference a study, but he does use well know science to provide support for his argument. Furthermore, he refers back to the studies that were performed on his voyage. He uses the evidence collected from blood and liver samples of fish to assert that plastic pollution is causing protein and hormone abnormalities. Another example of a scientifically supported premises. By using science to back up his premises and them making logical assumptions from them, Moore illustrates that he has viable evidence for his opinions about pollution. He also uses this evidence to logically connect plastic pollution to his solution of preventing plastics from ever getting
By using this study to support his claim, Moore displays that his premises is true and scientifically supported, making this a sound argument. Soon after making this point, Moore says “We know that plastic debris entangles and slowly kills millions of sea creatures; that hundreds of species mistake plastics for their natural food, ingesting toxicants that cause liver and stomach abnormalities in fish and birds, often choking them to death.” This, along with the fact that microplasics can get back into humans through consumption of contaminated sea food are well known scientific facts. Here, Moore dos not specifically reference a study, but he does use well know science to provide support for his argument. Furthermore, he refers back to the studies that were performed on his voyage. He uses the evidence collected from blood and liver samples of fish to assert that plastic pollution is causing protein and hormone abnormalities. Another example of a scientifically supported premises. By using science to back up his premises and them making logical assumptions from them, Moore illustrates that he has viable evidence for his opinions about pollution. He also uses this evidence to logically connect plastic pollution to his solution of preventing plastics from ever getting