Only with a new hub airport will Britain truly take off: It's madness to reopen the debate about a third runway at Heathrow. A new site is the answer.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11066917/Only-with-a-new-hub-airport-will-Britain-truly-take-off.html
The Telegraph, 01 September 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________
With the quality of his citizen's lives at stake, Boris Johnson can not help but publicize his stance on the creation of a new runway at the Heathrow airport. He introduces the topic with its detriments summarized in three, brief stabs of a phrase: the debate is "an act so self-defeating, so short-termist, and so barbarically contemptuous of the rights of the population." Johnson argues that those living under the flight paths will suffer greater consequences with this new runway. Noise pollution is inevitable with this plan and it might even take form as medical problems such as stress or heart diseases. To further his claim, he asserts that a third runway would not appease such a need for development and might even encourage the construction of another. Thus, with a firm grasp on its flaws, Johnson proposes that the construction of an entire new airport is only apt for the situation. A relocation would have many benefits: noise pollution would punish less people and a more convenient spot could offer less travel.
Boris Johnson, in this column, addresses the discrepancy concerning the creation of a new runway in the Heathrow airport, making sure to add in his own perspective on the matter. His proposed solution disregards the new runway and indicates the need for a new airport. Johnson support is intertwined with his rhetorical strategies. He has statistics in nearly every paragraph, ranging from noise pollution measurements (55 decibels) to job opportunities (336,000) to, of course, monetary values (92.1 billion Euros per year). Such staggering numbers serve to catch the reader's eye and persuade them to think in his favor. A crucial piece of Johnson's article is its concession-and-refutation style structure. He introduces the piece as an argument and exploits its flaw, following up with his own, seemingly perfect solution to the problem: he begins with the scheduled dispute and analyzes the potential detriments of the new runway. Shortly after, Johnson suggests an alternate resolution, the creation of an entire new hub. This strategy is even exercised upon re-evaluating his own solution: "there are some technical difficulties, sure: but TfL and our consultants are certain that neither fog nor birds nor the SS Montgomery present anything remotely approaching a deal-breaker to a country that used to have a reputation as the greatest engineering nation on earth." Johnson, with such strong stance on the topic, has demonstrated a great deal of self-criticism and meticulous judgment.
http://gyazo.com/3aabaa64574372c8fcc0eee76c72ad6e
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to see Boris take into consideration the well-being of the people. I figured it is quite a good move politically and socially; I don't mind politicians going out of their way for "reputation" points as long as they show an effort to improve society in any way.
I can't say this a particularly interesting topic, but your analysis of it is good, especially of the writing. I agree with you that Boris makes good use of several rhetorical strategies, most notably refutation, in arguing his point.
ReplyDeleteAkbar, you have a solid evaluation of Johnson's position on the creation of a new runway. In addition to what you mentioned in your post, I found it interesting that Johnson addressed the necessity of creating a new runway while also pointing out possible problems that might arise and proposing solutions. Throughout, the author argues his point both clearly and effectively.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think that the most important issue at hand here is the safety of the citizens. I say that Boris has the right idea here in considering their needs over the wants of some politicians.
ReplyDeleteThe comments on this article really amused me as it seems everyone is clearly pro or anti-Boris. I figured reading the comments would give me a bit more insight on what the public thought in a different country, which I guess it did. You definitely understand the concept well enough to analyze it, and I think you did a fine job at that. The appeals he made escaped me largely because I found the article a bit boring and monotonous, but I suppose his use of evidence and proposal work well enough for him.
ReplyDeleteAkbar, your analysis on this article was very thorough. One of the things that stuck out to me that you mentioned was the use of numbers. When I read the article, I also felt that the statistics greatly strengthened the argument. The use of these numbers made me feel like the author knew what he was talking and had thought over all aspects of his idea well.
ReplyDeleteI like how you noted that he makes effective use of statistics in his argument. One important technique that I noticed was that he tried actively tried to expand the audience that might agree with him. He looks at the issue and lists the pros of his proposition from multiple outlooks.
ReplyDeleteFor those who cared, including him, this was a feasible article. He really showed his stance through statistics and ethos. However, I think his ethos limited his audience because some may be against it. I, personally, believe that it would be a waste of time and money while the Heathrow airport is perfectly functional. I found it also a little difficult to figure out what his stance was because he discussed two, only slightly, related topics. Now, granted, they helped him argument really well, but I didn't see how they fit together. They almost seemed unattached, and maybe that's what his intent was in the first place, but it was difficult for me to focus on one.
ReplyDeleteBoris is hilarious. He's so British and angry. Besides that, he has a pretty good way with words. Every single argument he makes is substantiated with logical reasoning, and often with statistics. Use of statistics is a surefire way to get an audience to listen to your point. He addressed the argument that Heathrow airport's expansion would help facilitate commerce and relieve clogging at the airport, and immediately puts it down by listing evidence of its incapability to handle a reasonable amount of traffic in comparison to similar airports. His argument is reasonable, if the reader can get past the angry British persona.
ReplyDelete