The crack that could change lives, has been a conflict concern to the public. Hydraulic Fracturing(Fracking) is a method on how they abstract oil and gas to make an affordable source of energy. In the following documentaries FrackNation by Phelim McAleer and Gasland by Josh Fox, demonstrate different viewpoints on fracking. The individual with the greatest argument was Phelim McAleer due to using an excellent amount of persuasive strategies. In the movie Gasland Fox claims fracking has caused the water to be inadequate to drink due to the horrendous amount of chemicals in the water. Fox also claims that it is substandard to to the environment. Throughout the documentary he gives interviews to people on only his side. To make an excellent argument it involves the viewpoints of both sides of the situation. Fox’s way of persuasion is pathos.The strongest arguments provide all three of the persuasive techniques called Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. He played with the audience emotions and does not give accurate evidence to support his claims. Fox used logical fallacies like False analogy and circle reasoning. For example, fox says that fracking caused a huge increase in breast cancer in a certain area. With no valid evidence the accusation is a false analogy. Fox only swayed the …show more content…
McAleer gives the audience background on what fracking actually is. The interviews and statements he tries to obtained are from both viewpoints of the situation. McAleer uses all three persuasive techniques. He uses Ethos when he speaks to a university scientist to get an understand on the dangerous chemicals involved in fracking. He uses Logos when he uses evidence such as documents and statistics in his film. Lastly, he uses pathos for when he interviews individuals who believe fracking has made their life better, but never got their opinions heard. All threes persuasive techniques make McAleers argument