But usefulness is precisely the argument other people put forward to justify destroying or displacing wildlife, and they generally bring a larger and more persuasive kind of green to the argument. Nothing you can say about 100 acres in the New Jersey Meadowlands will ever add up for a politician who thinks a new shopping mall will mean more jobs for local voters (and contributions to his campaign war chest). Nothing you can say about the value of rhinos for ecotourism in South Africa will ever matter to a wildlife trafficker who can sell their horns for $30,000 a pound in Vietnam.

Question

What type of argument does the author use in this speech?

A. syntax
B. pathos
C. ad hominer
D. logos

Answer 1

The author uses a combination of emotional appeal and logical reasoning, but primarily leans towards:

B. pathos

The author highlights the emotional and ethical implications of wildlife destruction and displacement, illustrating the contrast between the perspective of those who justify such actions for economic gain and the intrinsic value of wildlife. This creates an emotional appeal to the audience. However, there are also elements of logos in presenting the financial contrasts (e.g., the ecotourism value of rhinos vs. the trafficking values), but the central thrust of the argument appeals more to emotions and values.