arguing for drones than he did against them. This is because he uses various experts in order to support his claim and he also uses statistics in a very calculated fashion. To begin with, Shane seems like a very credible person due to the way he establishes ethos with the opinions of many varying experts. The article mentions "So it may be a surprise to find that some moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare." After analyzing the quote it can be seen that these widely differing experts all relate to the subject at hand in one way or another which is an important aspect to keep in mind. At the end of the quote Shane makes sure to tie in the experts with the topic at hand so people associate experts with moral advantage making this a very effective piece for drones. …show more content…
Shane writes "The bureau has documented a notable drop in the civilian proportion of drone casualties, to 16 percent of those killed in 2011 from 28 percent in 2008. This year, by the bureau’s count, just three of the 152 people killed in drone strikes through July 7 were civilians." This shows how Shane can just use a statistic in order to support his argument which is good but the important part is right after. He mentions how the statistics can be off slightly. He counters this near immediately by using the highest estimate out there and showing that even in that situation the amount of people lost is still going to be significantly less than normal soldiers. "But even the high-end count of 20 percent was considerably lower than the rate in other settings, he found." Therefore demonstrating the way Shane is being calculated about using statistics and not using them