English | Argument Evaluation | Evaluating “Protect our Lands and Our Future: An

Argument for Preserving Public Lands”

Argument Evaluation
Evaluating “Protect our Lands and Our Future: An Argument for Preserving Public
Lands”
Janet Lane’s purpose throughout her public address, “Protect Our Lands and Our
Future,” is to persuade her audience and the town council to support a bill that
would establish public lands for recreation while also limiting urban development
and future industrial development on those lands. Her goal is to “ensure that our
children’s children have the opportunity to live, work, and play surrounded by
beauty and wilderness.”
To convey that purpose, Lane relies on descriptive language. She refers to Carl
Schurz’s 1913 Address to Congress in which Schurz argued that the United States
must protect its forests and wild spaces because “the destruction of the forests of
this country will be the murder of its future prosperity and progress.” She uses
vivid language to describe the beauty of the terrain surrounding her community as
well as the joy she claims is felt by those who live near and visit those spaces:
“Rather than concrete graveyards, we have endless fields of wildflowers, towering
walls of granite, and countless meandering trails where children celebrate their
natural curiosity and sense of wonder.” She frequently refers to the “hope” that
wilderness inspires as well as the “peace and serenity” that it affords others.
These descriptions of “soothing rivers, distant, snow-capped peaks, and fields of
wildflowers” are contrasted to
her description of “cold, sterile concrete forests....shopping centers stacked like
graveyards over the bones of lost trees and trails....”
Janet Lane frequently appeals by using pathos, ethos, and logos throughout her
argument. She appeals to her audience’s emotions and sense of nostalgia by asking
them to think back to the “joy they felt, racing through the wilderness with
nothing
but green grass and blue skies above them.” She also associates public lands and
protected wilderness with the “soul” of the community. She claims that failing to
protect their wild spaces would amount to “selling our souls to the highest
bidder.” To appeal to her audience’s sense of justice, Lane references their
responsibility to one another and to their children: “Shouldn’t we be teaching our
children the importance of respecting nature and protecting wilderness? Don’t we
have a duty to surround them, not with
the crime that comes from urban development, but with safety, security, and peace?”
The author also appeals to her audience’s sense of reason. She presents evidence
that supports the claim that public land access can increase property values,
promote healthier living, lower crime, and reinvigorate the economy.
The author also relies on rhetorical tools to connect with her audience and to
emphasize her message. She frequently uses hypophora: “What will remain of our
community if we lose sight of that which defines us? How can we continue to raise
our children in a place that has sold their future for temporary gain? We cannot
lose our souls to greed or the immediate temptations of urban development; we must
not bend in the face of adversity. But won’t the outside world pass us by? Then let
it.
Let it march forward in its own haste and frenzy. We will remain, steadfast and
pure, committed to a lifestyle that celebrates the very best within us.” These
tools engage Lane’s audience by creating curiosity and anticipation while
encouraging the response she wants her audience to exhibit.