'Tarmageddon' By Andrew Nikiforuk

The article “Tarmageddon”, written by Andrew Nikiforuk,starts by stating how Europeans felt towards Canada before and continues by explaining what has changed their stance towards Canada. He then bulges on by describing oil and the specifics of the oil Canada is refining while perceiving its problems along the way while portraying how Canada changed, explaining why those changes happened. Towards the end of the article Andrew looks into the government’s approach on the matter and how it is ignoring the entire incident. Finally, in the end he comes to his conclusion and warning about the country’s future and how it will become if nothing is done. In short Nikiforuk, elaborates about the negative effects of the tar sands on Canada.

From the

189).The author links Canada to Saudi Arabia, which is recognized as a “bad country” as stated earlier in the analysis.Hence the quote appeals more to emotions.The author seems to use logos throughout utmost parts of the article but pathos is felt often.When the author says,”Canada’s dramatic transformation began with the rapid exploitation of the use of the tar sands in the mid-1990s (p. 188),” the reader feels a strong appeal to pathos even when the author is using figures to prove his point.For example, “Bitumen has a Carbon footprint 244% greater than any oil”(p. 188). The author uses emotionally slanted language, which makes the audience easier to feel emotionally attached to the problem.The quote mentioned above should appeal the reader through logos but in this case, it appeals to pathos due to the vocabulary choices such as “dramatic transformation”.In the same way, Andrew Nikifurok goes on by using phrases such as “poisonous legacy” and also name calls the prime minister though he stated that “Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, the son of an Imperial Oil executive”(p. 189).His emotional aslope vocabulary states his facts appeals more to pathos than to logic.As observed the author uses phrases usually before he makes use of