It would be possible to analyze the author’s use of anecdote
to start the passage or his use of inductive logic throughout the essay, but it
is the fallacious backbone of the piece that really plays with the reader’s perception
of the argument. Overall, this essay can be dissected into a variety of
fallacies which can be persuasive at first sight but ultimately disprove the
author’s logic and render his argument invalid. Louv’s point about humanity’s decaying
relationship with nature is ultimately weak and his argument about synthetic nature
is left unfinished. Furthermore, none of his proof matches his conclusions and
his slippery-slope-type of downfall into a future without nature makes no sense
in the context of his examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment