The author Tina Fanning in the newspaper article “cars no longer sustainable”, which was written in July 2007, contents the effect of car usage on global warming and the effect on the future of our children that proves the high level of harmfulness that global warming causes. The audience in this article is aiming at car users and state governors.
the first argument that is used is that country people have “stopped coming to Melbourne for the big games, shopping, theater or the art galleries.” The technique that is used is reason and logic, as he uses a clear logical and rational argument to prove his point. The effect this particular argument has on the reader is that, it makes them realize one of the major negative outcomes of this issue, therefore, taking the issue less lightly and more seriously. The tone the writer has during the argument is anger, seriousness and sympathy for the people outside Melbourne who have the will to visit. the second argument involves the Victorian’s addiction to cars, and that they overuse it whilst being “dependent on cars for personal and individual status and comfort as much as for convenience.” This pushes the reader to feel a sense of guilt and shamefulness as he attacking them for being a factor of one the negative outcomes. A rhetorical question was used in order to make his point in this argument clear enough as he says “what warming signs can you see?” trying to remind the reader of the signs of global warming that accruing recently. The Tone of the writer during the argument is disappointment and accusation. The third argument in this article is that the effect of global warming is the same effect of smoking and alcohol and how it impacts on the future and the health of the people. Fanning proves this through her words “they are now on a par with social evils of smoking and alcohol”. Analogy was used, as the author compares two point of views which are smoking and alcohol with global warming trying to prove that...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document