Government Must Preserve National Parks by Todd Davidson Analysis
In the article “Government Must Preserve National Parks” Todd Davidson uses multiple techniques to form his “argument” about why national parks should be preserved; some of them fall short, this can be seen when analyzing his evidence, writing style, and reasoning.
When taking a glance at this article the reader can see the lack of different sources/evidence being used throughout the article. Todd Davison tries to create an argument by stating facts and statistics; the evidence seems one-sided almost. Todd Davidson doesn’t use multiple people or organizations for evidence. Just uses one source of information (the government). “Each year, nearly 300 million people visit one or more of America's 401 national parks.” Todd, in this situation and throughout the rest of the article, uses evidence but isn’t backed up by anything, according to who is this right? In Informational writing, facts should be backed up. When facts are backed up the reader is more prone to believe the information provided.
Todd Davison’s lack-of interesting writing style shines through greatly in his article. The lack of interesting writing style in this writing makes the information provided seem bland and almost copy-pasted from somewhere else; it seems like Todd was trying to sprinkle (a few) intricate words in some places to hide the lack of literary devices used. “The spectacular October fall colors of red maples, oaks and hickories in the forests of the Great Smoky Mountains and not been overcome by the incredible, almost magical grandeur that has been preserved for us and future generations.” In this portion of the article (and other parts) the reader can see (some) words that create imagery and intricacy but just aren’t being used enough in the rest of the article. The reader gets a sense of just being read fact after fact and no breaks from them. This ends up just creating a dull-factual article. It simply just doesn’t draw the reader into caring about the information as much as the writer might care about it. Todd could create a larger sense of intricacy by including more literary devices.
Lastly, Todd lacks a strong base and reasoning to this argument as to why national parks should be preserved. (at first) Todd doesn’t provide reasoning to the reader as to why he’s writing this, instead, he just shows why national parks are good. He, later on, does provide a base argument that he is arguing against, but doesn’t provide one at the beginning; this leaves the reader confused and searching for something that he is arguing against. Todd, later on, does provide the very thing he is arguing against, but the article seems to end abruptly after-which with not much more reasoning after the argument is shown. It leaves the reader confused and wanting more information to go along with it after. Not only the placement of the argument in the article is a hiccup, but the problem with Todd’s argument is Todd basically provides information that seems to solve the problem/argument. In paragraph 7 Todd states President Obama is currently working on solving the lack of funding within the national parks, right after he provides this as the base argument, this makes his argument seem weak and ineffectual, almost like there wasn’t something to even be fighting against if it’s already being fixed.
As reading Todd Davidson’s reasoning as to why national parks should be preserved the reader can see the lack of techniques he uses to form this argument; the main ones being his evidence, writing style, and reasoning.