The Carnivore's Dilemma By Nicolette Hahn Niman

Is eating meat a detrimental threat to the environment? This debate over meat’s involvement in the global warming crisis was what inspired Nicolette Hahn Niman to write, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” Niman hoped writing, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma,” would cause her audience to understand that eating meat, raised on traditional farms, was a superior alternative to vegetarianism. Niman supported her claim by explaining how industrialized farms and vegetarians produce more of the three greenhouse gases that caused global warming, than that produced by traditional farms. Niman’s article fell short of being effective due to flaws in her supporting evidence and conclusion. The author's use of a compare/contrast structure and the appeal to ethos to support her claim was effective. However, her use of the hasty generalization and “Red Herring” fallacies caused the audience to doubt her claim, that meat from traditional farms was better for the environment, had sufficient evidence to

As "The Carnivore's Dilemma" is first published in one of the world's well-known newspapers, also known as The New York Times Niman's credibility receives another boost. Niman's constant use of words like "generally" and "could" when supporting evidence, and not naming specific experts from which her evidence came from renders her attempt at an appeal to logos useless. When Niman's use of the ethos appeal meets with this failed attempt of the logos appeal, her language is negatively affected. It is important to remember that organization and language are two of the main components that add to the effectiveness of an article, and so far "The Carnivore's Dilemma " has fallen short in both of these areas which causes the article's effectiveness score to