In “Protect Our Bats,” Rodrigo A. Medellín, Don J. Melnick, and Mary C. Pearl make an argument that something needs to be done to protect North American bats. The authors discuss how disease and wind turbines are decimating the bat population and why this is detrimental to North Americans. Medellín, Melnick and Pearl make their arguments using logos, ethos, and pathos. Arguments based on logos are appeals to reason that rely on logic. In the article the authors explain why North America “can’t afford to lose these creatures.” They explain how bats are vital to the balance of the environment by providing figures on how much money bats are estimated to save as pest control. They also logically refute the argument that pesticide could replace these bats by explaining how pests have developed immunities to pesticides and bats are nature’s pesticide.
Like any good journalist, the authors do not just make logical appeals to the audience but also establish their credibility. Arguments base on ethos, which are appeals based on the credibility of writer, are evident throughout the article. The main way that Medellín, Melnick and Pearl establish ethos is by proving that they have done extensive research on the subject. They provide research from journal of BioScience and information on White Nose Syndrome as well as economic figures, all of which prove to the reader that the authors have done enough research to qualify them to write on the subject.
The last way that the authors make their argument is through emotional appeals to the audience’s needs and values, or pathos. The authors attempt to make the audience emotionally connected to the bats by explaining how, because of White Nose Syndrome, thousands of bats starve to death every year. This attempts to appeal to the audiences’ sense of humanity. The authors also attempt to appeal to the audiences’ sense of self-preservation and safety by explaining that “threats to bats also threaten us.”
Medellín, Melnick and Pearl do a good job of establishing their credibility by providing extensive research analysis however their logic of protecting bats from wind turbines is not convincing because they have no solution for protecting bats from White Nose Syndrome which, from the article, seems to be much more detrimental to bats than wind turbines. Perhaps if they had focused more on the dangers of wind turbines or at least made an appeal for more research to cure White Nose Syndrome the devastation of the bat population would not have seemed so inevitable and the article would be more convincing.
Works Cited
Medellín, Rodrigo A., Don J. Melnick, and Mary C. Pearl. “Protect Our Bats.” New York Times. 11 May 2014. Print.
