Don't rush to hydraulic fracturing, better known as hydraulic fracturing, is a hot environmental topic in our society today. Hydraulic fracturing is the process of drilling into layers of the Earth's crust using a mixture of water, sand and chemicals under high pressure. 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 hydraulic fracturing is safe for groundwater quality and whether the reward is worth the potential repercussions is a well-rehearsed debate. David Brooks, New York Times columnist and author of “Shale Gas Revolution,” believes fracking is a blessing that America should take advantage of. On the contrary, "Safety First, Fracking Second" written by the editors of Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States, believes that hydraulic fracturing would be very beneficial, but that precautions and safety standards must be put in place beforehand. Brooks uses dramatic and pathetic language to persuade readers that fracking is something we need to use now, while only glimpsing the possible consequences of fracking, thereby diminishing his goodwill and ability to achieve a wider audience. Scientific American uses strong logos, building credibility, to convince readers not to rush into solutions we don't know much about. Additionally, Scientific American's choice of topic layout and decision to use more factual knowledge and list possible solutions to fracking problems instead of influencing public emotions makes this article an argument which a variety of audiences can connect with. Overall, this reinforces 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 Should Not 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 style of writing. He carries out fracking, a “blessing,” from which America should benefit (238). According to Brooks, because America is "cluttered" with different interests and opinions, we "groan at the thought of absorbing even the most wonderful gifts" (238). Surprisingly, all of this is only in the first paragraph of Brook's article. In the first paragraph alone, Brooks uses strong philosophy to make his readers almost feel bad for not getting into fracking. Brooks, obviously a right-wing columnist, is speaking to all readers who may not be on his side. Brooks continues to show his strong philosophy by including the opinions of 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 hydraulic fracturing, is said to have “fought waves of skepticism and opposition to extract shale gas” (Brooks, 238). Brooks wants to convince his audience that making fracking a popular ideal is a battle and one that must be won. Yergin even continues by qualifyingthe hydraulic fracturing revolution as “revolutionary” (Brooks, 239). Before even listing the benefits of fracking in his article, Brooks wants to convince his audience that despite the number of benefits for American citizens, despite the number of possible consequences, America needs fracking and it should be used regardless. In his article, Brooks added an anecdote about his meeting with John Rowe, the CEO of Exelon. Since Exelon operates with nuclear power plants, the company knows it would hurt if fracking becomes the new frontier. Despite this, John Rowe knows "how much shale gas could mean to America" ​​and "it would be a crime if we squandered this blessing" (Ruisseaux, 240). Brooks ends on this note to persuade his readers that if one man was willing to sacrifice so much for America's economic gain, then we should too. Brooks spends most of his essay trying to emotionally please his audience, which leaves very little room. for the facts about fracking, and even less room to explain both sides: the benefits and possible dangers. Brooks chose to spend most of his time illustrating the benefits of fracking, including providing employment opportunities, and only giving a glimpse of the consequences. According to Brooks, the use of shale gas has generated half a million jobs in states like Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and soon Ohio. Another advantage is that America can start investing in its own energy rather than seats on board. The French company Vallourec is even building a $650 million factory in Ohio that would make steel tubes for wells (Brooks, 239). Brooks' strategy of listing the benefits of fracking first made sense. Excited about 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 explaining how fracking could potentially contaminate water drinkable. Although readers may have noticed this paragraph, Brooks quickly includes a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology discussing, in Brooks' own words, how "inherent risks can be managed if there is a reasonable regulatory regime and if the general public has a balanced and realistic idea of ​​costs and benefits” (240). Hiding one side of the story greatly diminishes Brooks' credibility as a trustworthy author. Additionally, Brooks chooses to criticize people who might be on the other side of his argument. He blames environmentalists for the fact that fracking is not accepted nationally by saying that they "seem to view fossil fuels as morally corrupt and imagine [that] we can go overnight to wind and solar” (239). Brooks even goes on to assert that “not in my backyard activists are organizing to prevent exploration” and that the confrontation between them and the coal industry is “brutal” and “totalist” (239). Brooks does an incredible job of making his argument and trying to persuade his readers to agree with him, but by making assumptions about the intentions of activists and denigrating them and environmentalists, it's also another example of how Brook's ethics are seriously lacking. Who would trust an author who builds confidence in his argument by trampling on opposing viewpoints? This also limits the..