Question

do you think that winona laduke made an effective argument for reducing light pollution? why or why not?
winona laduke effectively argued for reducing light pollution using logos by explaining its harms with evidence, pathos by showing how it affects wildlife and human health, and ethos by drawing on her credibility as an environmental activist, while also offering practical solutions
sample response: i think laduke makes an effective argument for reducing light pollution. she appeals to emotion by describing the beauty of fireflies and the harms done by light pollution. she establishes her credibility by finding common ground with the reader. she appeals to logic by presenting logical reasoning for her case. she also cites outside experts who provide strong support for her position. these all help make her argument convincing.
what did you consider in your analysis? check all that apply.
an appeal to logic
an appeal to character
an appeal to emotion
the effectiveness of the appeals

Explanation:

The sample response mentions LaDuke's use of logos (appeal to logic by presenting logical reasoning and citing experts), pathos (appeal to emotion by describing beauty and harms), and ethos (appeal to character by using her credibility as an environmental activist). It also assesses the effectiveness of these appeals.

Answer:

an appeal to logic, an appeal to character, an appeal to emotion, the effectiveness of the appeals