In each of the “red meat” categories, factory farms produce over ninety percent of the aliments put onto American tables. Recently, a large anti-agriculture organization by the name of PETA, has been rallying against factory and industrial farming by holding rallies, writing emotional articles, and through academic journaling in attempt to put an end to what they see as outrageous cruelty to animals that are domesticated in factory farms. Published just two years apart, in 2017 Timothy Hsiao wrote the well- rounded “Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals” and in 2015 Yuval Harari, writes “Industrial Farming is one of the Worst Crimes in History” to present his opposing views on the topic. In Hsiao’s piece he utilizes multiple rhetorical
…show more content…
Throughout the entirety of both pieces there were vast differences in the why the authors wrote. First and foremost the ultimate difference was the sheer credibility that Hsiao held over Harari, through a series of appeal to logic and using valuable statistics, Hsiao’s scholarly background only deepened his claim and allowed the reader to be more drawn to his piece. Whereas Harari tried to apply statistics and failed to give any credit to a source. Yet another variation between the drafts were the ways the authors decided to initiate an appeal to emotion. As Hsiao gradually incorporated infants as near to most hearts, Harari used harsh weightful words to gain the reader's attention and allow them to continue indulging in his article. Comparable to the theme noticed throughout Hsiao’s work he too organized his piece in an impeccable way to make the paper easy to comprehend and understand the exact point he was arguing throughout. Contrary to this Harari again reaps the downfall when compared to Hsiao’s work. When assessing the pieces together both would be valuable to the drafting of an argumentative essay on whether or not Industrial Farming is or is not ethical and what proof can be found to back that claim up. Harari shows emotion through his dark piece about what he believes is the worst crime in history, and Hsiao intertwines scholarly information and elegance to ensure the reader that no harm is done by Factory Farms but rather we receive benefits from them. Although there are tremendous differences in each article and the way the author composes them, they both work to prove their point and generate a solid
Throughout the entirety of both pieces there were vast differences in the why the authors wrote. First and foremost the ultimate difference was the sheer credibility that Hsiao held over Harari, through a series of appeal to logic and using valuable statistics, Hsiao’s scholarly background only deepened his claim and allowed the reader to be more drawn to his piece. Whereas Harari tried to apply statistics and failed to give any credit to a source. Yet another variation between the drafts were the ways the authors decided to initiate an appeal to emotion. As Hsiao gradually incorporated infants as near to most hearts, Harari used harsh weightful words to gain the reader's attention and allow them to continue indulging in his article. Comparable to the theme noticed throughout Hsiao’s work he too organized his piece in an impeccable way to make the paper easy to comprehend and understand the exact point he was arguing throughout. Contrary to this Harari again reaps the downfall when compared to Hsiao’s work. When assessing the pieces together both would be valuable to the drafting of an argumentative essay on whether or not Industrial Farming is or is not ethical and what proof can be found to back that claim up. Harari shows emotion through his dark piece about what he believes is the worst crime in history, and Hsiao intertwines scholarly information and elegance to ensure the reader that no harm is done by Factory Farms but rather we receive benefits from them. Although there are tremendous differences in each article and the way the author composes them, they both work to prove their point and generate a solid