Don't rush to frack Hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, has been a hot environmental issue in our society today. Fracking is the process of drilling into the layers of the Earth's crust using a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals. This process is used to release natural gas buried in underground shale rocks. In today's society, the need for natural gas is becoming more and more necessary. For this reason, the debate over whether fracking is safe for groundwater quality and whether the reward is worth the potential repercussions is a well-rehearsed discussion. David Brooks, New York Times columnist and author of “Shale Gas Revolution” believes fracking is a blessing that America should take advantage of. In contrast, “Safety First, Fracking Second,” written by the editors of Scientific American, the oldest continuing magazine in the United States, believes that fracking would be very beneficial, but that precautions and safety standards must be put in place first. Brooks uses dramatic language and pathos to persuade readers that fracking is something we must use now, only glimpsing the possible consequences of fracking, thus diminishing its goodwill and ability to reach a broader audience. Scientific American uses strong logos, increasing its credibility, to convince readers not to rush into solutions we don't know much about. Furthermore, Scientific American's choice of topic placement and decision to use more factual knowledge and list possible solutions to fracking problems instead of influencing the audience's emotions, make this piece an argument that a variety of audiences can use to agree. Overall, this strengthens Scientific American's ethos and suggests that their rhetoric is more effective overall. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To emotionally persuade his readers to agree with his point of view, Brooks uses dramatic language and pathos to strengthen his argument. Instead of sticking to the facts, Brooks uses almost a narrative writing style. He proceeds to fracture a “blessing,” which America should take advantage of (238). According to Brooks, because America is “clogged” with diverse interests and opinions, “we groan to absorb even the most wonderful gifts” (238). Surprisingly enough, all of this is found in just the first paragraph of Brook's article. In the first paragraph alone, Brooks uses strong ethics to almost make his readers feel guilty for not getting involved in fracking. Brooks, obviously a right-wing columnist, is addressing any readers who may not be on his side. Brooks continues to showcase his strong ethics by including opinions from other notable authors. Daniel Yergin writes about a man, in his book “The Quest,” whom Brooks calls a “business genius,” George P. Mitchell (238). George P. Mitchell, credited with introducing the process of fracking, apparently “struggled against waves of skepticism and opposition to extract gas from shale” (Brooks, 238). Brooks wants to convince his audience that making fracking a popular ideal is a battle that should be won. Yergin even goes on to call the fracking revolution “revolutionary” (Brooks, 239). Before even listing the benefits of fracking in his article, Brooks wants to convince his audience that despite the numerous benefits for American citizens, despite the number of possible consequences, America needs fracking andshould be used regardless. Also, to conclude In his article, Brooks added an anecdote about his meeting with John Rowe, the CEO of Exelon. Because Exelon operates nuclear power plants, the company knows it would be harmful if fracking became the new frontier. Despite this, John Rowe knows “how much shale gas could mean to America” and “it would be a crime if we wasted this blessing” (Brooks, 240). Brooks concludes with this note to persuade his readers that if one man is willing to sacrifice so much for America's economic gain, then we should too. Brooks spends much of his essay trying to emotionally appeal to his audience, which leaves very little room. for the facts about fracking, and even less space to explain both sides: the benefits and the possible dangers. Brooks has chosen to spend most of his time explaining the benefits fracking brings, such as providing job opportunities, and merely glances at the consequences. According to Brooks, the use of shale gas has produced half a million jobs and will be added in states such as Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and soon Ohio. Another benefit is that America can start investing in its energy instead of seats on board. The French company Vallourec is even building a $650 million plant in Ohio to produce steel tubing for wells (Brooks, 239). Brooks' strategy of first listing the benefits of fracking had a purpose. Hoping for excitement over the possibility of America becoming a place where other countries would turn to natural energy, readers probably didn't even notice the three-paragraph essay discussing how fracking could potentially contaminate drinking water . Even if readers had noticed this paragraph, Brooks immediately includes a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that discusses, in Brooks's words, how “inherent risks can be managed if a reasonable regulatory regime exists and if the general public has a balanced and realistic sense of costs and benefits” (240). The act of hiding one side of the story significantly diminishes Brooks' credibility as a reliable author. Furthermore, Brooks chooses to criticize people who may be on the other side of his argument. He blames environmentalists for the fact that fracking has not been accepted nationally, saying they “seem to view fossil fuels as morally corrupt and imagine [that] we can switch to wind and solar any day” (239 ). Brooks even goes on to state that “activists not in my backyard are organizing to prevent exploration” and that the confrontation between them and the coal industry is “brutal” and “total” (239). Brooks does a great job of defending his thesis and trying to persuade his readers to agree with him, but making assumptions about activists' intentions and bashing them and environmentalists is also another example of how the ethics of Brooks is seriously lacking. Who would trust an author who would bolster confidence in his argument by trampling on opposing points of view? This also limits Brooks' ability to reach a wider range of audiences, limiting his audience to only people who share his same beliefs. Meanwhile, Scientific American's rhetoric is much more effective because, although it is well written, the argument remains fairly neutral. attractive to people who have different kinds of opinions on fracking. Editors tend to stick exclusively to the facts, including studies and possible solutions to the dangers of fracking, for the sake of readers. Scientific American makes its case..