Two opposing films best reveal the controversy and confusion surrounding fracking. These two documentaries are GasLand by Josh Fox and FrackNation by Phelim McAleer. Due to the many holes in GasLand’s logical reasoning, it is evident that FrackNation presents the better argument.
GasLand is riddled with logical fallacies. Perhaps the most prevalent logical fallacy in GasLand is card stacking. Most of Josh Fox’s argument revolves around listing long chemical names and substances as a scare tactic. However, the audience is given no context as to what the chemicals are. This makes the substances appear to be much more toxic than they really are and can be misleading to viewers. Fox deliberately fails to acknowledge the fact that there is a threshold that draws the line between benign and hazardous chemicals. When this fallacy is uncovered by McAleer, Fox’s credibility is questionable and his contention is far less convincing. Josh Fox’s use of logical fallacies weaken his argument. …show more content…
Fox stands firm in his opposition against fracking, but lacks concrete evidence to support most of his claims. One of the most obvious examples of this is in FrackNation when the dirty water crisis is disproven. People who claimed to have dirty water could not produce it when asked to on film. When the water is sent for further testing, their water tests clean. The authenticity of GasLand is questionable after more truth is revealed. In GasLand, another main assertion is that fracturing has caused tap water to become flammable. To counter this, McAleer uncovers that the phenomenon behind the flaming water resides in reports of methane gas in the water supply over the last few hundreds of years. Fox seems to know of this information as well, but refuses to provide a straight answer when questioned about it by McAleer. Clearly, the facts presented in GasLand hide the whole truth and have been proven