Alyssa Mascow

English 101
9/27/16
Different but Effective
How do essays work? What makes an argumentative piece effective? These are the
questions that a writer must ask themselves when constructing an argumentative essay. These are
also questions that a reader should keep in mind when reading and analyzing an essay or a group
of essays. There are qualities that essays should have in order to be effective. The qualities can
be found in the group of essays under the theme of Ethics. Though the essays under the theme
Ethics display some differences with the use of appeals and tone, and similarities such as
purpose, they are still effective as argumentative pieces. The use of those essential qualities of
purpose, tone, and appeals may not be completely similar between the three essays, but they still
work as essays because of the way that they are used.
A similarity between the essays under the theme Ethics is the purpose of informing the
reader of an issue within society. In the essay Live Free and Starve, Divakarunis purpose is to
inform people about how the anti-child labor bill that the American government thought would
be beneficial would turn out to be detrimental for the children it affects. The author makes her
purpose clear when she poses the question of whether child laborers would rather work under
harsh conditions or enjoy a leisure that comes without the benefit of food or clothing of shelter
(429). This question prompts the reader to ask themselves whether the bill that the author
introduced at the beginning of the essay, and it sets up the rest of the essay. In a similar way,
Waste Not, Want Not, McKibbens purpose is to inform the reader about an issue in society:
the massive amounts of waste within the U.S.. Unlike the first essay, though, this one has a

second purpose, which is to inspire the reader to take individual action to change the issue that he
points out. McKibbens purpose does not become evident until the end of the essay, when he
states that the economic mess now transfixing us will mean some kind of change (561). Since
the author waits until the end of the essay to clarify his purpose, the rest of the essay seemed
unstructured and confusing. The essay Forget Shorter Showers shares a similar purpose as the
previous essay, which is to inform the reader that individual change is not enough to preserve the
environment, and to inspire the reader to create change on a much larger scale than individual.
The authors purpose became clear when he stated that even if every person in the United States
did everything the movie [An Inconvenient Truth] suggested, US carbon emissions would fall by
only 22% and that the scientific consensus is that emissions must be reduced by at least 75%
worldwide (565). All three essays share the common purpose to inform, but the second and
third essays also share a purpose that the first essay does not have, which is to inspire some sort
of change. The clarity of the essays purposes is important so the reader can understand why the
author is writing, and when that is made evident, the reader can understand the rest of the essay.
The essays under the theme Ethics have different uses of the literary appeals ethos,
pathos, and logos. The author of Live Free and Starve uses ethos and pathos. Divakaruni uses
ethos when she tells the story of a boy that worked in her house when she was young. She
explains that though the life he had was undesirable for a child, it was still better than the life he
would have led if he did not work for them. She then uses pathos to invoke pity in the reader by
explaining that if the boy had not worked in her house, he would have had to live in the streets
and steal from farms, despite the fact that he would be beaten for it. The appeals work well to
make the reader sympathetic to the authors cause, and the personal story shows the authors
credibility on the subject of child labor. Unlike the first essay, Waste Not, Want Not and

Forget Shorter Showers use the appeal of logos. The difference between the authors use of the
appeal is how effective it is. In Waste Not, Want Not, McKibben uses logos to back up his
claim. He uses data and facts to prove that the United States was producing too much waste and
that the people need to begin change within society. The use of logos works in the beginning of
the essay, but the author overuses the appeal. He does this when he explains how much
Americans waste, saying that we discard enough aluminum to rebuild our entire commercial air
fleet every three months- and aluminum represents less than 1% of our solid waste stream, that
we toss 14% of the food we buy at the store, and that more than 46,000 pieces of plastic
debris float on each square mile of the ocean (559). The author bombards the reader with data
and numbers, making the essay dry and difficult to read, taking away from the effectiveness of
the essay. Jensen also used the appeal of logos in Forget Shorter Showers to back up his claim
with data. The author provided a sufficient amount of data to prove his point, but unlike
McKibben, his use of facts did not take away from the effectiveness of the essay. Regardless of
the difference between the two essays, they are similar because they both use the same appeal
that Live Free and Starve does not use. The second and third essay have the most effective
uses of literary appeals, but they use different appeals.
The essays also have differences in tone and consistency of tone. The tone in Live Free
and Starve is one of frustration and questioning, as evident when she asks if this bill, which, if
it passed the senate and is signed by President Clinton, will lead to the unemployment of almost
a million children, the answer? (429) Divakarunis tone stays consistent through the whole
essay, which displays to the reader how she feels about the subject. Her tone and the consistency
of it also makes the reader sympathetic to her purpose in writing the essay. Waste Not, Want
Not does not share the consistent tone that Live Free and Starve has. McKibbens tone

throughout most of the essay is frustrated, like Divakaruni, but it is also a little angry. In the last
paragraph, though, the authors tone shifts to one that is more hopeful. The shift is clear when the
author states that its possible that the planet will keep warming and the economy will keep
sinking no matter what. But perhaps not- and we seem ready to shoot for something nobler than
the hyper consumerism thats wasted so much of the last few decades (561). This change from
negative and desolate to positive and hopeful is effective. Most of the essay is fairly negative and
it gives the reader a sort of slap in the face with reality. Then, the author gives the reader a sense
of hope by posing solutions. This makes the reader feel that they can make a change in society.
In a similar way as the previous essay, Forget Shorter Showers changes in tone from negative
to positive. Like McKibben, Jensens essay is mostly negative, and he is obviously frustrated.
Like McKibben again, the author brings in a bit of positivity at the end when he talks about
possible solutions, like how we can rehabilitate streams, we can get rid of noxious invasives, we
can remove dams (566). The authors use of tone is effective for the same reason that the
previous essay is. Jensen shows the reader the hard truth, but ends it on a positive note. The last
two essays are again more similar to each other than they are to the first essay.
All in all, the last two essays, Waste Not, Want Not and Forget Shorter Showers have
the most in common. The have the same purpose, the same use of appeals, and a similar tone and
tone progression. The last two essays differ from the first essay, Live Free and Starve, but they
do share a purpose, which is to inform the reader. The second and third essays are more similar
to each other than the first essays, but the third essay is more effective than the second essay.
Though that is true, the first essay is still more effective than the others. The other two essays did
use numbers and statistics, but Divakarunis use of personal story and emotion was more
effective than facts alone. The fact that she had personal experience in the topic that she was

talking about proved her credibility, and her frustrated but steady tone show her feelings to the
reader. That being said, the other two essays were still effective, however different they are.

Works Cited
Divakaruni, Chitra. Live Free and Starve. The Bedford Reader. Edited by Kennedy, X.J.,
Kennedy, Dorothy M., Aaron, Jane E., Repetto, Ellen Kuhl. Bedford/St. Martins, 2014: pp 428430.
Jensen, Derrick. Forget Shorter Showers. The Bedford Reader. Edited by Kennedy, X.J.,
Kennedy, Dorothy M., Aaron, Jane E., Repetto, Ellen Kuhl. Bedford/St. Martins, 2014: pp 564567.

McKibben, Bill. Waste Not, Want Not. The Bedford Reader. Edited by Kennedy, X.J.,
Kennedy, Dorothy M., Aaron, Jane E., Repetto, Ellen Kuhl. Bedford/St. Martins, 2014: pp 557561.