Question

2. As the long-time mayor of our town, I strongly support the new

apartment complex that will be built over part of Willoughby Wetlands.
We currently do not have enough good housing for all our citizens, and
the problem has only gotten worse in my years as mayor. I'll be as
sorry as anyone to see the wetlands go, but my job is to make sure all
people in our town have adequate housing.
Which statement best compares the ways that the two arguments use
appeals?

Answer 1

The first argument uses emotional appeal by emphasizing the importance of preserving natural habitats and the potential negative impact on the environment. It also appeals to ethical values, such as the responsibility to protect wildlife and maintain a healthy ecosystem.

The second argument uses practical appeal by focusing on the need for more housing in the town and the responsibility of the mayor to address this issue. It also appeals to the values of equality and fairness, suggesting that all citizens deserve access to good housing.

Therefore, the two arguments use different appeals to support their positions. The first argument appeals to emotions and ethics, while the second argument appeals to practicality and equality.

Answer 2

The first argument uses an appeal to emotion, while the second argument uses an appeal to logic.

The first argument appeals to the emotions of the reader by emphasizing the need for housing and the mayor's concern for the citizens of the town. The argument acknowledges the impact on the wetlands but implies that the needs of the people are more important. This is an emotional appeal.

The second argument uses an appeal to logic by presenting a clear and logical argument that the wetlands should be protected because they provide important environmental benefits. The argument acknowledges the need for housing but argues that there are other ways to address the housing problem that do not involve destroying the wetlands. This is a logical appeal.