The articles “The Reluctant Hunter” and “Serve or Fail” propose two different topics, but both share the same conviction—show respect for something to appreciate it. Basing from the arguments presented by both authors, I think they both have their points that warrants one’s favour, but then again both have their flaws. Nickola has a point that killing animals should not be done out of sheer fun, adrenalin rush or as a game. It deserves a meaningful purpose. However, not because we buy our food from the grocery and we do not use our hands to slaughter the animal does not mean we have no respect or appreciation for these creatures. While Eggers made a point that a lot of the time spent in school are not fully maximized for their intention and that students are graduating are not prepared to join the workforce. However, I do not believe that forcing them to do community service and making it a mandatory requirement for graduation would address the issue. I earnestly believe that there should be an equal balance of curricular and co-curricular activities.
Nevertheless, if relevance will be the sole basis for awarding the merit of providing the most persuasive argument, it would be Eggers. Both authors were credible (ethos) because both have personal experience and knowledge of their topic. However, Nickola was more focused on drawing favour base on emotions (pathos) that he failed to be logical (logos) in approaching the discussion. Whereas, Eggers equally balances his prejudices with the rational arguments of his topic. For these reasons, Egger argument was more convincing and more reasonable than Nickola.
Work Cited
Eggers, Dave. "Opinion: Serve or Fail." 13 June 2004. The New York Times Web site. Web. 29 September 2014.
Nickola, Cameron. The Reluctant Hunter. 2014. Print.
