Any feedback would be really appreciated Thank you!
The Essay question was:
1250-word persuasive analysis comparing two essays from this section of the course Essay topic:By comparing and contrasting features of argument in two essays on a particular theme, argue a persuasive case for one essay having a better argument. Why do you favour one essay's construction of case over the other? How does the text lead you to that position? In your essay you will need to include critical discussion of each text, summarising key points of comparison. Consider how each essay attempts to persuade, and locate the flaws or weaknesses in the argument.
Quammen vs. Scully
While the two essays "Who Swims with Tuna" by David Quammen and "Riches of The Sea" by Matthew Scully are unified by their intention to educate and provoke consideration in their audience, it is their contrasting style of argument that sets them apart. Quammen elects to evoke our compassionate nature with descriptions of the unique and almost spiritual connection we have to dolphins and with the gruesome accounts of the cruel deaths dolphins suffer when caught in fishing nets, to compel us to question why the same death is acceptable for tuna. Scully instead takes his reader beyond emotion and allows advocates of whaling and seal hunting to share their own perspectives. These honest and personal accounts show the determination of hunters to preserve this culturally and economically valuable right to utilize marine mammals. While Quammen may have provoked thought, and for many, even outrage, it is Scully who by using the voice of his opponent, succeeds in exhibiting the many obstacles of those campaigning for change against those who continue to defend their cultural and economic assets in a global battle for consensus.
One such advocate for whaling from the Japanese Delegation is Shigeko Misako, whose job it is to argue Japan's case at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) each year. It is her belief that: "if we succumb to the moral standards of the Western world we would lose control over our own people. When anyone dares criticize whaling...they are trying to impose their Western view of whales [upon] the rest of the world" (Scully, 40). These sentiments are echoed by Norwegian fisherman Steiner Bastesen posing to Scully the question: "what is so special about the whale?" Arguing "[Why] should our decisions be based on [feelings]...or on some notion of ethics...or reason or science?" To him, this question is supported by the assumption that if emotion is successful in dictating the protection of whales, then it is a logical progression that other valuable animals will be similarly restricted as a result "...where does it end?" (Scully, 20)This use of viewpoints that contrast his own enables Scully to convey concisely the difficulties in negotiating with people whose perspectives are so vastly different to that of his own. Adopting this inclusive style of argument, Scully has clearly identified numerous and fundamental sticking points frustrating wildlife conservationists. With each rebuttal tailored to a specific remark from those defending whaling, he is able to objectively enlighten and persuade.
Sentiments like the ones expressed by Misako and Bastesen are conspicuously absent from Quammen's account. Instead his focus is centered around the descriptions and experiences of Sam LaBudde, a conservation activist who filmed the disturbing footage of dolphins suffering and dying, which not only triggered Quammen's distress but also the public's outcry and subsequent boycott of all tuna caught by purse-seining nets. Employing the same emotive strategy Quammen's tactics mirror those of LaBudde's by prompting his reader to think about the identical and widely accepted treatment of tuna. This is not an attempt to begin a new campaign for tuna but to address the disparity in our emotional reaction towards different species of hunted or harvested animals.
While Quammen has made it clear that it was his intention to highlight our subjective sympathy, the scattered references he makes to the death process of commercially harvested tuna does little to promote any remorse in their consumers. From his opening statements, Quammen has clearly established that aside from the fact that dolphins are mammals, there are also many personable aspects to dolphins that tuna can never boast. Compelling in his defense of the dolphin, it is his omission of emphasis to cruelty suffered by tuna at the hands of fisherman that may fail to convince his audience. The lack of supporting fact could also deter the more pragmatic reader who is not easily persuaded to feel sympathy for fish and will subsequently reject his argument as being unfounded and Quammen's point will be lost.
Scully has alleviated this potential risk by objectively presenting both the defense of his opponent and his response that addresses it. This debate-like style of rebuttal allows the reader to carefully consider all the facts and almost inevitably come to the same conclusion as Scully. With this credible presentation of evidence that refrains from using dramatic and emotive persuasion, he enforces the integrity of his argument. Factual in his approach to presenting his point, it is still apparent that Scully does care deeply about the fate of whales. His remark that he "would rather associate with the [hippies] and the girl in tears" (Scully, 40) shows that while he recognizes how powerless their pleading is and its inevitable futility, their motivation and objectives are all the same.
While this stance becomes apparent prior to the summation of his essay, one could be forgiven for questioning why Scully delayed so long in positioning himself on the conservation side of the debate. His intention to allow the reader to form their own unbiased conclusions may also weaken the strength of his argument with the lack of indication to which side he was going to support. Rather than make his point and defend it in the manner of Quammen, he has assumed that his readers will be rationally persuaded by the facts rather than merely trusting his personal preferences.
Having safely validated the reasons for his own conclusions, Scully escapes to the sanctuary of the sea and the company of the resources he aspires to protect. "All we got for our $30 were a few dives and flips of her great tail and some foamy stirring of the [calf's] tail...but it was enough... whales have bent enough to our wishes" (Scully, 45). This fleeting and distant glimpse he describes, of a mother with her nursing calf is sufficient to offer Scully hope that they will be granted the freedom to reach maturity undisturbed and as a species survive. This final observation serves as a poignant request that we permit whales to continue their lives without persecution and ensure that our appreciation of their spectacular and mystical qualities is only from a distance.
It is the culmination of Scully's insightful responses to the viewpoints put forward by pro-whalers and the undeniable integrity of his evidence supporting these responses, which makes his artfully constructed argument superior. Despite Quammen's success at rousing an emotional response it is the lack of corroborative evidence that prevents his idea of tuna as another species of marine life, whose welfare needs consideration, from being taken too seriously. Like a masterful interrogator Scully has simply allowed those he spoke to, who favoured whaling, to unwittingly reveal the many flaws in their beliefs forming the basis of his persuasive argument. This is further strengthened by the lack of overly emotive sentiment from Scully. Instead he has chosen to employ the testimony from his opponents to fuel the same dismay and compassion in his audience that he felt when hearing firsthand the cruel indifference in the attitudes of those endeavoring to promote their rights to whale commercially. In doing so he has articulately demonstrated the primary avenue for protecting the whales should be the opening of the minds of those who so far, fail to appreciate them for their intrinsic value and how tragic it would be if they failed to survive us.
Works Cited:
Quammen, David. "Who Swims with Tuna?" ENGL117 Course Reader: Writing
the Academic Essay, Christchurch, School of Humanities,
University of Canterbury. 2010. 31-34.
Scully, Matthew. "Riches of the Sea." ENGL117 Course Reader: Writing
the Academic Essay, Christchurch, School of Humanities,
University of Canterbury. 2010. 35-45.
Hi there,
We are lucky to have such an outstanding writer participating in our forum. I see that you don't need basic corrections, so I'll share with you some of the most recent insights I've gained. The is the advanced placement class, ha ha...
When you can get away with leaving out commas:
Commas are like stop signs that clog up traffic. They are necessary sometimes, but when a phrases go together to form the same meaning you can leave the commas out:
While Quammen may have provoked thought, and for many even outrage, it is Scully who by using the voice of his opponent succeeds in exhibiting the many obstacles of those campaigning for change against those who continue to defend their cultural and economic assets in a global battle for consensus.
Look for the 2 places I took away commas. You can get away with not using them, because they were separating clauses that actually "go together" to form a single idea.
Like this:
and for many even outrage...
(a comma after many is unnecessary)
Present tense:
Usually it is best to stick to present verb tense
While Quammen has made does make it clear that it was his intention to highlight our subjective sympathy, the scattered references he makes to the death process of commercially harvested tuna does little to promote any remorse in their consumers.
Instead he chooses to employ..
Okay, I hope you'll spend some time helping other writers at EssayForum! Your writing is very impressive.
