numerous sorts of automobiles to keep up with the growing demand from consumers. The article,
“Environmental Double Standards for Sport Utility Vehicles,” from the advocacy of Suv.org,
argues that SUVs unleash a maelstrom of problems for the United States concerning their fuel
dependency that stirs more addiction towards petroleum and concerning their overwhelming
effect to the environment. Specifically, SUVs expel large quantities of greenhouse gases and
eject even higher traces of air pollutants that greatly harm the general health of any community.
Contrary to this article, an argument written by John Gragg, “The American Dream: Why
Environmentalists Attack the SUV,” clearly illustrates the positive side of SUVs. In general,
SUVs best serve in the interest of human nature, which is the desire to alter the environment to best benefit his or her own prosperity. Ultimately, Suv.org submitted a poorly organized analysis
with information jumbled up in such a manner that it ignores its intended purpose.
Most definitely, Suv.org scrambles its information rather than presenting an organized
argument. Primarily, Suv.org starts the case by imparting the thesis in the first sentence of the
article without any effort in grabbing the audience’s attention beforehand. As quoted from the
article, “SUVs present a paradox to consumers – television advertisements present them as a way
to return to nature, yet they actually accelerate existing environmental problems” (p. 546). From
this opening statement, the reader can clearly see that the intended purpose of this whole
commentary was to issue attacks at SUVs and disregard any attempt to actually persuade the
opposition. Subsequently, the organization springs forth irrelevant statements to the paragraphs
they support. In regards to Suv.org, “The U.S. EPA and the Department of Energy have teamed
up to create a website that lists the vehicle fuel economy, and compares vehicles to each other.
(p.549)” As observed, Suv.org has the intention to just spur information without regarding the
appeal of the data towards the thesis. Finally, the organization seeks to engulf the readers with as
much information as possible rather than concentrating on swaying the addressees with critical
information. As cited from the article, “Commercials often depict happy families driving on
mountain roads, avoiding falling rocks and enjoying the flowered wilderness in leader-seated
comfort” (p.546). Perceptibly, commercials have the tendency to mislead a buyer upon false
pretenses. Nevertheless, commercials provide no connection to what makes SUVs wrong.
Similarly, Suv.org intends to baffle the audience by focusing overwhelmingly on general
environmental issues instead of how they relate specifically to SUVs. Firstly, the organization
seeks to address the issue of global warming rather than the issue relating to SUVs. As indicated
from the organization, “The IPCC anticipates highest temperatures and heat waves over the next century, as well as more intense and dangerous storms” (p. 547). Clearly, the issue about how
weather patterns effect the environment has no relevancy towards the concerning topic.
Secondly, the group centers on the problem of how smog control and air pollutants affect the
human body instead of how they relate to SUVs. As stated, “These combustion pollutants
contribute to eye and throat irritation, coughing, nausea, dizziness, fatigue, confusion, and
headaches” (p. 549). Noticeably, the author deliberates entirely on the issue of the harm from
ignition toxins rather than their relation with SUVs. Finally, the organization concentrates on the
centerfold of oil dependency in the absence of information regarding SUVs. As asserted,
“Currently, more than half of the oil we use is imported” (p. 550). Clearly, the statement has to
do with foreign trade and not SUVs.
Correspondingly, the association emphasizes too much persuasion in certain places that it
simply ignores the informative purpose about the dangers of SUVs. Initially, Suv.org uses an
ethical source without providing much credible evidence from that source. As stated from the
author, “The excellent USC report is called ‘Drilling in Detroit,’ and it can be found at
http://www.ucsusa.org/vehicles/drill_detroit-exec.html” (p. 551). Evidently, Suv.org intends to
direct the reader to find the facts for the essay rather than simply providing them for the viewer.
Subsequently, the group tries to escape the responsibility of providing information to certify the
article’s assertions. As quoted, “However, the NAS points out that reducing the weight of the
largest SUVs on the road would make all drivers safer, since the biggest SUVs tend to do more
damage in an accident” (p. 550). The impression made from this statement makes the issue of
safety irrelevant, since Suv.org dismissed bringing forth any data from NAS to substantiate the
claim presented. Lastly, the organization ends the article by outright bashing automobile
manufacturers. As indicated, “But automakers are unlikely to make significant improvements unless they are pushed” (551). Unmistakably, the association discounts any attempt in
persuading the opposition.
Concluding, Suv.org offered a disappointingly study about SUVs cluttered up with the
intention to ignore its rationale. First, Suv.org disregarded any attempt in either organizing its
facts or seeking to grab the readers’ attention. Second, some of the facts specify no correlation to
the topic at hand. Last but not least, the article has persuasion intended to drive reader the away
either by requiring him or her to look up the specifics, by disregarding any verification for the
claims asserted, or by lacking any friendly tone in addressing the concerns brought up the opposition.