Does the author use too much sentiment and sensationalism, too little, or just the right amount?

You will enter into the debate between McKibben and Jensen (LINK IS ATTACHED)about the role
of responsibility in addressing the climate change crisis. You will build a thesis that presents an
argument as to whether you agree with McKibben or Jensen more, as well as identify points in
which you might disagree with one or the other. So, your thesis will take a “yes/no/ok, but”
stance, demonstrating that you agree, disagree, or only partially agree with one of the two
essayists.
In your analysis, in addition to taking a stance in response to the essay’s thesis, you will analyze
the ethos, pathos, and logos of their arguments. You will demonstrate, through analysis of those
rhetorical strategies, why you find the essay believable or questionable at various points. Does
the author use too much sentiment and sensationalism, too little, or just the right amount? Does
the author rely too much on evidence, without any use of pathos, or is there too little use of cold
hard facts? Does the author seem questionable in your eyes, such that you question their
credibility (ethos), or do you find him highly credible?
In other words, you will
1) take a stance in relation to the thesis and
2) you will analyze the three
elements of their argument (pathos, ethos, and logos) to demonstrate why you find any part of
the argument compelling and believable, or lackluster in sentiment and questionable in logic—or
some combo of each.

Derrick Jensen
https://www.teachgreenpsych.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Jensen-2009-Orion-Magazine-shorter-showers.pdf
Bill McKibben

Waste Not, Want Not

Last Completed Projects