English Reading Quiz "Silent Spring

What does Jean Rostand mean by our "obligation to endure" (para. 36) How is our "right to know" related to this obligation?

Access to information should not be taken for granted. Does the human race have a duty or commitment to last? God made us to complete this exact task and to also worship him. We have to be educated!

Why does Carson begin "A fable for Tomorrow" with imagery rather than exposition? What is the effect?

Carson begins "A Fable for Tomorrow" with imagery rather than exposition in order to represent events in ways that the reader could relate to and understand better. For instances, Carson writes, "The town lay in the midst of a checkerboard of prosperous farms, with fields of grain and hillsides of orchards where, in spring, white clouds of bloom drifted above the green fields" (888). By reading this sentence, one can easily picture the scenario and identify with the writing.

Carson says that the public "is fed little tranquilizing pills of half truth" when it contests the use of pesticides (para 36.). Why is this metaphor effective?

Carson says that the public "is fed little tranquilizing pills of half truth" when it contests the use of pesticides. This metaphor is effective because of the truth behind it. Carson explains that "this era an era of specialists, each of whom sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it fits." The people using harmful pesticides are fed "half truths" by large corporations who are only in the business for the money and don't want their product removed so they misinform the public who aren't educated enough on the chemicals to believe anything but what they are told.

In paragraph 16,, Carson claims that humankind is engaged in a "war against nature" and describes the targets of that war. Do you agree that targeting certain things for destruction(or at least control) means we are at war with nature? Can we be at War with something that is not our intended target? Explain

I do not believe we are at war with nature itself, but we are trying to control nature and force it to adapt to our standards. The world loves the outdoors and nature but we hate certain things in it. For example, mosquitoes is an extremely hated insect that everyone tries to get rid of. Unintentionally and we do not mean to be at war. How can we be at war with something that can not fight back?

How do Carson's tone, style, and purpose change in paragraphs 9 and 10? Why do they changed? How does Carson's voice change from "A fable tomorrow" to "The obligation to endure"? How does the difference serve the writers rhetorical purpose?

In the beginning of "A Fable for Tomorrow," the tone can be described as descriptive. In addition, her style is basically an outline of what a specific town looks like and how it has changed with her purpose being to describe the details of the town. In paragraphs 9 and 10, this shifts to a more matter of fact tone stating, "This town does not actually exist, but it might easily have a thousand counterparts in America or elsewhere in the world." Additionally, her purpose becomes to explain how disaster has occurred in America.

Carson says the products used to kill bugs should be called "biocides" instead of "insecticides" Why? What is the difference?

It can be misunderstood as something that can kill other things beside insects, changing the name is good for the customers to make sure they known exactly what they are buying. (Sociologically holds a heavier weight than the other. It's misleading. The general public has a right to know. It does not just kill insects but infects everything around it.)

What has changed since Carson wrote Silent Spring? Has the natural environment improved? Has it declined? Since Carson's time, have we become more concerned with the effect we have on nature- or less concerned? Explain your response.

Nature is still diminishing all around the world and has defiantly not gonna better. Today's world is has been working hard to find cures to this epidemic. For example, We have created eco friendly cars and eco friendly power systems. (It has improved. Pollution has become worse. )

How does Carson appeal to authority in paragraph 27? Where else in the selection does she appeal to authority? What is the effect of her use of statistics in paragraph 28?

She appeals to authority because she uses Elton's name. She did not use him or say "a man said..." This could cause the reader to look him up and learn more about him. Her statistics strengthen her case. This makes her claim more verifiable and the reader will take her more seriously.

Why doesn't Carson mention her "Contention" until she nearly finished with the piece? Is her argument inductive or deductive? How do you know? Also, why does she tell the reader what her "contentions" aren't before stating what they are? What response from her readers might she anticipate at this point in their reading?

She gives voices to possible arguments. It is inductive because she gives details on why her conclusion is correct.

Why does Rachel Carson begin with "There was once a town...", as though she were writing a fairy tale? Is this a fairy tale of sorts? How does Carson present the town in paragraphs 1 and 2?

She tries to present the town as a perfect place and then contrasts it with the pollution and how it falls apart. She uses colors and birds, fish and the streams, the first settlers.

Why does Carson call the insects problem a "train of disaster" (para. 23)? What is the effect of this metaphor?

The "train of disaster" metaphor is Carson's way of describing the lasting effects of pesticides on the natural environment. Carson suggests that the process of spraying insects is a result of the immense power for altering the environment that human beings possess. The Train of disaster is Carson's way to express the destructive nature of human use of pesticides . Carson makes the argument that is an ecosystem balance of which hum are a part

Carson claims in paragraph 12 that "the most alarming of...assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials." Is contamination still the most alarming assault on the environment or has another problem taken its place?

Yes, because all of the damage done is irreversible and through out the 40 years it has only gotten worse. Recycling has helped with the environment but it does not make it much better.