Rhetorical Analysis on Air Pollution in China - Report Example

?Rhetorical Analysis paper on air pollution in China The genre of the text is an argument, blog, or an opinion-based essay. King has not included many features; the article lacks visual effects. There is just one picture in the article that shows China Wall. The picture in no way indicates that there is air pollution in China. The smokiness in the picture can be taken as mist and fog to suggest that the picture had been taken on one early winter morning in China rather than air pollution. Ideally, King should have selected a picture that would speak volumes about the growing problem of air pollution in China to go with the discussion he makes in the text. The purpose of the article is mentioned right in its topic at the outset i.e. how can the audience use the rising air pollution in China to make profit. This inherently draws the audiences’ attention toward the text that follows because of the unique opportunity of making profit that it suggests. King’s goal is to convince the audience that air pollution in China paves way for new opportunities of investment and profitability. King has adopted the style of a guide in the article for the audience. In this article, King has made a very structured approach to guide the audiences through his argument in that he has also proposed how to approach the topic; he has suggested what to think at a particular point while reading the article as “Hold that thought, while you consider another point” (King, 2013). Likewise, he says, “I'll discuss this in a moment. First, however, let's take a look at” (King, 2013). Not only does King suggest the audiences when to think what, but he also openly tells which point needs more thinking and which should just be ignored; “And don't chuckle at that idea” (King, 2013). He has used this structured and guided-thought strategy to make the audiences think exactly on the lines that he wants them to think on so that by the time they reach the article’s end, they consent with what King that it is possible to make profit from the rising level of air pollution in China. King has emphasized on particular words and incorporated emotional appeals in the article by using different word formatting to reflect their importance e.g. “Bad means BAD” (King, 2013). Occasionally, King has exaggerated problems to make the audience see through his lens e.g. “the words 'air pollution' and China are almost one and the same” (King, 2013); obviously they are not the same for had they been same, they would have been synonyms. One can sense the high level of sarcasm embedded at several such points in the article. At another point, King says, “drivers can't see where they're going” (King, 2013); obviously it is very unlikely for the air pollution to rise to a level where the drivers can even not see where they are going. However, these effects do make the article more interesting and help the audience understand the gravity of the problem which is one of the goals of King. In order to emphasize his argument, King has made use of numerous examples that suggest rise in the air pollution in China. These examples include but are not limited to increase in the number of road accidents, delayed flights because of low visibility from air pollution, clogging of hospitals in Beijing from people suffering from lung ailments, cancellation of the outdoor activities by schools, and stores running short of out-face masks. These examples reflect as pictures in the minds of the audience as they read the article. While King notes several statistics to show rise in the air pollution in China e.g. reading for air pollution given by the air monitor on top of the US Embassy in Beijing, China and its comparison to the average reading to show how far pollution has exceeded, King has not given in-text citations or a references section to facilitate the audience in locating the sources of the statistics he uses. There are several points where he has made statements without supporting them with adequate sources. For example, King says, “The worst of China's air pollution, just now, is comprised of fine particulates” (King, 2013). This statement obviously requires scientific proof and research backup to be made so that the audience can believe it, but it is not given in the article. Despite the fact that the article has some flaws, I think that King has made his point effectively. He started over with discussion of how grave the problem of air pollution has become for China. He subsequently created a sense that the government of China faces both external and internal pressure to take necessary measures to reduce the level of air pollution that has already reached alarming limit. Finally, King speculates what the government of China is likely to do in the near future to deal with the problem. This speculation lays the basis of his argument that investors need to invest in the emission control devices in vehicles and generators, and to invest in palladium and platinum as their demand is likely to increase and their prices are likely to rise as a result of this. Although the article largely stands as a point of view or opinion of King, yet the way he has made it and the structured approach that he has adopted in making this argument makes the audience consent with King by the time they are finished reading the article. However, one flaw in the article is that it barely touches upon the tendency of making profits from the investment, manufacturing, and sales of emission control devices nearly the end of the article. For the most part, the article just discusses the examples of the ways rising air pollution has affected China which in a way is consistent with the topic of the article. The article could have been better had King cited some evidence of the way such plans have worked in the past. References: King, B. (2013, Jan. 29). How You Could Profit From China’s Air Pollution. The Daily Reckoning. Retrieved from http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/how-you-could-profit-from-chinas-air-pollution/2013/01/29/. Read More