Let’s Widen the Net on Sharks

1. Let’s Widen the Net on Sharks Rhetoric

2. Summary – Lets Widen the Net on Sharks • Shark attacks are on the increase. • Shark nets prevent shark attacks. • More shark nets are what the community wants. • Shark nets are not leading to the extinction of ocean species. • Sharks should be held responsible for the attacks they make. • We should be using more shark nets to protect swimmers from being attacked by sharks.

3. The first premise of the target argument is set amidst rhetorical devices aimed at demonising sharks, marginalising activists and eliciting a sense of national unity. For instance, the author describes sharks as “deadly creatures” and labels a recent attack as “brutal” in contrast to “innocent swimmers”. While these descriptions are at times appropriate, in this instance they are a rhetorical devices used to get the reader on the author’s side from the beginning without reasonable grounds. The author uses loaded terms to describe the activists as “hijacking” a “sensible” plan to expand shark netting, which again relies on an emotional contrast to gain the support of the audience. Furthermore, a suggestion of certainty is used in saying “you would think that all Australians would be working together” to protect swimmers, making out that any patriotic person would join in the efforts of establishing more nets. This also plays on our sense of loyalty and is thus emotionally charged. The second premise of the target argument is presented as a “ridiculous claim from the pro-shark lobby”. But considering that the ‘pro-shark lobby’ is a rhetorical label designed by the author to suit the author’s purposes, this premise only promotes scepticism regarding the reliability of the target argument. This suggests that the author has constructed a weak target argument and can be accused of using the straw person fallacy.

4. Within a Paragraph on Premise 1. Most of this sub-argument’s strength comes from the emotionally charged language used, such as using “murder” rather than killing. Without adequate evidence supporting a rise in deaths from shark attacks, the conditional statement that “if we want to stop this tragic tally rising even further, we need to take action now” cannot be taken seriously. Within a Paragraph on Premise 3. There is a rhetorical question used to insinuate that by arguing against shark nets animal activists don’t care about the loss of human life. This seems highly unlikely and is used for rhetorical affect alone. Within a Premise on Premise 4. This is also supported by the offhand dismissal that is given to the reported claim of extinctions: “but let’s not forget there are plenty of fish in the sea!” This rhetorical remark only strengthens the lack of interest in animal welfare shown by the author.