This essay intends to compare two essays and evaluate their arguments.
Argument Analysis: What kind of argument floats better with the reader?
"Who Swims with the Tuna" by David Quammen and "Riches of the Sea" by Matthew Scully provide commentary on the demise of Marine Mammals. "Tuna" is about public reaction to the death of dolphins, while "Riches" is about international whaling and the controversy surrounding it. In my essay, I will argue that the argument in "Tuna" is more convincing. I will establish that "Tuna", as an argument, is more persuasive because it employs a suitable style of writing, establishes a clear cut topic, relies on its own originality as well as being concise and objective.
"Tuna" and "Riches" are different styles of text. "Tuna" is more analytical and dialectic, with the author questioning the perception of all people, including his own, and using that to come to his final conclusion. This style of writing is much more suitable for an argumentative style of writing because it isn't reliant on a summary or too many figures. "Riches" is a mixture of essay and recount. The author provides a summary and devotes a large portion of his text to quotations from various figures associated with his subject as well as citing numerous facts, figures and anecdotes. He also adds his own analysis on the IWC and its convention, as well as the broader subject of whaling. "Riches" excels at informing the reader of the occurrences at the IWC (International Whaling Commission) convention in 2000. However, as an argument his style of writing is not very effective. Scully's arguments are constantly side tracked and the reader's attention is diverted to nonessential information.
When it comes to introducing a topic, both writers have different approaches. David Quammen brings his argument to the forefront immediately in "Tuna" by outlining his thesis statement in the first paragraph. "The killing of dolphins is a national outrage; the killing of Tuna is a given. I keep asking myself why. There are some good reasons and some bad reasons, I think, which haven't been closely examined, or even sorted apart". Quammen makes the reader's job easy, which is essential for a good argument. He identifies what he will be talking about, giving the essay structure and a focus point. In contrast, Scully fails to identify his topic immediately, preferring to use an informal interview as the basis for his introductory chapter, which spans over five pages. Because of this, Scully fails to establish his issue and solidify his position. His opening pages simply reflect the views of somebody else, he doesn't allow himself to create a statement or ask a question that will give the text direction.
When comparing essays, both authors differ in their use of direct quotations. In "Tuna", the author rarely quotes, opting to paraphrase instead. When he does quote, they rarely exceed one or two sentences and they are put into the context of his own writing. This allows Quammen to assert his own argument and be concise in his text, keeping the reader interested and focused. In contrast, "Riches" devotes a large portion of the text to quotes from his interviewees. Because of this, Scully doesn't allow himself to enforce his own viewpoint, rather letting his quotations do that for him.
In "Tuna", Quammen also succeeds in making his text as brief as possible by going straight to the point and not using any irrelevant information without omitting any vital facts. "Tuna" allows the reader to absorb all of its information and argument in a very precise and uncomplicated matter, giving the reader better chance to identify with its argument. Scully sets the tone in his introduction of a text that has no true argument or structure, being more of a recap than an argument. With quotes taking a large section of his text and a lot of writing being invested into nonessential information, Scully's text spans over 49 pages and is difficult to read. His story shows a large and thorough research phase but shows a lack of refinement and abstraction in the end product.
In terms of objectivity, both writers have similar biases due to opposing dietary practices. It is revealed in "Tuna" that Quammen indulges in meat and in an extract before the beginning of "Riches" it is revealed that Scully is a vegan. In "Tuna", Quammen considers his own bias as a "confirmed carnivore" and evaluates it; comparing it to other viewpoints and then drawing his conclusion. It doesn't necessarily make him less biased but it does make his conclusion more balanced. In comparison, Scully does not aknowledge his own bias in "Riches". While it is noticeable that he is against whaling, readers would not know the underlying reason for this stance could be a product of his veganism.
Both "Who swims with the Tuna" and "Riches of the Sea" are well rounded and well written pieces of work that explore their respective topics in thorough but different ways. Despite this, "Tuna" argument is much stronger because it uses a more suitable style of writing as well as a clear topic, abstraction, transience and the ability to identify bias and moderate its effect on its conclusion. It gains superiority over "Riches" due to its style of writing, which fits the classical mould of the "Critical Analysis". Quammen's introduction, body and conclusion all interact well with each other and mixed with his concision makes it a hard text to misinterpret or lose focus whilst reading. On the other hand, "Riches" provides abundant information surrounding the IWC's Convention in 2000. He recounts the event with accuracy and his analysis of the IWC is not out of place. It isn't hard to see that each writer had different visions for their story. It just so happens that the vision of "Tuna" contained many components which made it a much more convincing argument.
well-ro unded and well-wri tten ...
Here is my advice. Make a list of the 7 topic sentences in this (the first sentence of each paragraph), and reflect on it. Google "argumentative essay" and "compare and contrast essay" and decide which you want to write. I would do an argumentative essay, and really make my topic sentences convey a strong argument. You are taking an approach that, while it does assert an opinion, is still more like a compare and contrast essay.
I think this will get a great grae as it is, but my advice above might help you some time in the future.
I think it was David Brin who first pointed out that environmentalists are always only really concerned with creatures they can anthropomorphize, using just that example, that they were always ready to protest dolphins caught in tuna nets, while never seeming to take up arms against the idea of tuna caught in tuna nets, even though there never was any principle that could justify this difference in approach.
As for your essay, you might want to deal more with the actual arguments each makes. At the moment, you are in the odd position of saying that Quammen makes the more convincing case because he quotes fewer sources and refers to fewer sets of hard data than Scully does. [In contrast, "Riches" devotes a large portion of the text to quotes from his interviewees.] and [Scully's text spans over 49 pages and is difficult to read. His story shows a large and thorough research phase]. Even the assertion that he is more difficult to read could be attributed to his having more nuanced, hence more convincing, case. To tighten up your own argument, I'd throw in some quotations that clearly capture the stylistic points you are talking about and then explain in detail how Quammen is more convincing. Some analysis of the logic employed by each author would be nice, too.
