ipl-logo

Rhetorical Analysis Of Louv's Argument

508 Words3 Pages

One of the rhetoric strategies Louv uses to develop his argument is asking questions. After establishing his stance on the separation between between people and nature, Louv presents two questions to his readers. Louv asks, “Why do so many Americans say they want their children to watch less TV, yet continue to expand the opportunities for them to watch it? More important, why do so many people no longer consider the physical world worth watching?” In the first question, Louv is referring to the television sets that can be found on the back of headrests now. This is so the children can watch TV and not bother the driver. However, the headsets do more than entertain them, they distract them, specifically from the nature around them. Louv uses …show more content…

Louv envisions what the future will be like if people continue to become more separate from nature. THis make his writing effective because it makes the reader ponder long term. By actually presenting the vision the vision he has to the readers, Louv makes the idea of this happening more real to them. The possibility of this actually happening provides a sort of reality check for the readers and makes them ponder over the topic even more. Louv develops his argument by first making the reader think and then presenting his idea on the idea at …show more content…

This is persuasive becasue it makes the reader realize how much has changed. By using this device it makes the reader recalll their own past and reflect on the changes they have gone through. Many adults can relate to this mostly because of how much technology has advanced. As Louv points out, technology is the major factor in seperating of people and nature. Louv expounds, "We stared with a kind of reverence at the horizon, as thunderheads and dancing rain moved with us." He recalls how the nature used to effect people but now doesnt becasue technology has seperated people from nature. This rhetorical stategy is the mosy powerful and persuasive which is why Louv chose to end his article with this rhetorical

Open Document