Letter to the Editor and Persuasion

Bob Dinneen wrote a letter to Rolling Stone concerning “The Ethanol Scam”. In this article Bob discusses Ethanol, the effects of it, and how he feels about it. Bob states in multiple examples that Mr.Goodell has only presented only one side of this argument and that is inappropriate to do. This article makes a good point because when writing to persuade, one should typically present both sides of a debate even if only one side is agreeable to them. Bob appears irritated by the fact the Mr.Goodell has presented one side to the Ethanol issue and clearly elaborates in numerous ways as to how that is unacceptable. He literally attacks each point Mr.Goodell made and explains his thoughts on each. I agree that Mr.Goodell should address both parts of this Ethanol debate, and due the fact that he did not, he appears less credible. Writing to persuade is explained in a way through this letter to the editor. Due to the fact the Bob elaborates each one of Mr.Goodell’s points, it demonstrates the lack of valuable and valid points made. At the end of this article, bob says “But it is irresponsible to present one of the argument without fully understanding the role renewable fuels like ethanol must play in our nation’s energy future. Mr.Goodell and Rolling Stone would be doing right by their faithful readers if they would at least consider all the facts.” This is a valid point made by Bob because I agree that it is true. To be persuasive or to make a point, verifying understanding of both sides is important. Just reading this has given me not only a different view about ethanol, but also a helpful example of how persuasive writing can be influential.