An important key to making an argument successful and effective is rhetoric. Defined as "the art of using language effectively and persuasively," rhetoric is the driving factor that appeals to the audience (dictionary.com). If used successfully, rhetoric can encourage an audience to accept and agree with an author’s main points, and perhaps influence them to act upon the author’s argument. If used ineffectively, rhetoric can leave the audience with a distasteful feeling toward the author’s argument and even the author. An author who’s rhetorical strategies prove to be effective and successful is Garrett Hardin. Best known for his essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons," Hardin applies logos to his argument to appeal to his audience. In his article, "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor," Hardin provides a metaphorical illustration of ecological issues that wealthy countries face. His purpose is to persuade his audience to try and curve overpopulation for self-preservation. Contrastingly, an author who’s rhetorical strategies prove to be ineffective is Peter Singer. Best known for "triggering the modern animal-rights movement," Singer utilizes the rhetorical strategy of pathos to appeal to his audience (Singer, 533). In his essay, "Singer’s Solution to World Poverty," Singer deeply digs his claws into the emotions of his readers when attempting to persuade them to come to the aid of impoverished nations.

     The differentiation of the effect the two authors has on their audiences relies on their use of rhetorical strategies. Singer relies heavily on appealing to the emotions of his readers’ and in doing so, he is very straightforward and candid in the presentation of his argument. Hardin on the other hand, relies on a mixture of logic and emotion to get his argument across to his audience and provides vivid imagery to support it. The utilization of logos and by Hardin establishes credibility because his argument is more logical and plausible, making it more effective; whereas Singer’s pull on the strings of his reader’s emotions and his hypothetical examples makes his argument seem unrealistic and offending.

     The similarities between the two authors are based on the fact that both their interests lay in the realm of issues concerning poverty. Their arguments definitely have a humanitarian inspired touch to it. Both authors also seem to have others’ interests at heart. Neither one stand to gain anything from presenting their arguments. Hardin’s motivations seem to be based entirely on the welfare of America’s resources and people. Singer’s motivations are based on the welfare of people who suffer from impoverty. This is where the similarities end between Hardin and Singer. Although both arguments have to deal with issues concerning poverty, Singer encourages his audience to help those who are less fortunate, while Hardin encourages his audience not to help them because the consequences that will result are detrimental to both the giving and receiving ends. The rhetorical strategies used to convey these arguments differ, which in turn creates a great comparative analysis.

      The tone of one’s argument plays a role in how the reader will perceive it and essentially how it makes them feel. The tone of an argument can also be used to assume the kind of audience the author’s argument is intended for. Singer’s article seems to have a more colloquial tone. His use of diction doesn’t seem like it would go over the head of his readers, but at the same time he hasn’t "dumbed" down his language in order for many to understand it. The tone of Singer’s article also defines the relationship he has with his audience. This relationship can be defined as authoritarian because Singer doesn’t talk to his audience like they’re his equal, but rather it seems like he’s talking down to them, criticizing them for their actions or lack thereof. An example of Singer being an authoritarian is when he deems himself a "utilitarian philosopher" and defines such a role as being "one who judges whether acts are right or wrong by their consequences" (Singer, 534). His self-imposed role of being the judge of all others’ actions is egotistical and makes him come off sounding like he’s morally superior to his audience. Consequently, Singer’s tone can be characterized as disrespectful because he views his audience as inferior to himself. It can be assumed that Singer’s audience is not a group of children, so his parent to child approach cannot be effective when trying to persuade his adult readers in accepting his argument. His disrespectful tone is what leaves his readers with a distasteful feeling toward his argument and him.

     Contrastingly, the tone of Hardin’s article has more of an academic feel to it. He also doesn't "dumb" down his language, but it can be assumed that his argument is intended for those who are fairly educated. Hardin also has the ability to convey information and his argument without sounding like he’s of superior standing. He writes to his audience like they are of equal status to himself. It’s as if he’s simply passing down knowledge to a friend. This defines his relationship with them as that of which peers would have. A peer is a "person who has equal standing with another or others," and that is exactly how Hardin makes his audience feel (dictionary.com). The repetition of the words "we" and "us" also implies that Hardin and his audience are of equal status. This allows more of a possibility for his audience to be persuaded by his argument and for them to accept it because if they believe that he’s in the fight with them against overpopulation, they’ll be more inclined to go along with the solutions he prescribes. Hardin’s peer to peer relationship with his audience creates a tone of respect, and unlike Singer’s disrespectful tone, this allows him to have a positive effect on his audience.

      The use of language also is important for the process of attracting and persuading one’s audience. An author’s language gives him or her the ability to make their argument sound possible and persuasive to the audience. Singer’s language is effective in the sense that he is able to extract emotions from his readers which in turns makes them take notice of what he is writing about. Singer’s use of the word "luxuries" and the repetition of it is a central element to his argument. He is able to place a negative connotation on a word that is primarily looked upon as positive. When writing about luxuries such as, " going out to nice restaurants, buying new clothes because the old ones are no longer stylish, vacationing at beach resorts," Singer makes them sound like such a horrible thing to have or do when compared to helping others in the world who are less fortunate (Singer, 533). Singer consistently makes the comparison between such luxuries and helping others, and in this comparison, having luxuries will always sound negative and selfish because helping others is morally the right thing to do. This was possibly done by Singer so that his audience would feel guilty if they perceived themselves as living luxuriously. This rhetorical strategy of using language to make an audience feel a certain way was definitely effective for Singer; however, it was not effective to the point that it made his audience want to behave any differently or take action upon his argument. Yes, Singer was able to extract the emotion of guilt from his audience, but from this guilt resulted anger. This anger that his audience felt perhaps came from the fact that not only was Singer judging them for their lack of helping others, but he was also trying to make them feel guilty for it. Essentially, Singer is not successful in influencing his audience to accept his ideas by using language.

     Hardin, on the other hand, utilizes the tool of language effectively and persuasively. The use of metaphors is perhaps one of the biggest and strongest language strategies that Hardin uses to make his argument persuasive. Essentially, his whole argument is founded on the lifeboat metaphor. Because of the use of a metaphor, Hardin is able to paint a visual illustration of his argument to his audience. This helps influence and persuade his readers because they are able to really grasp the whole concept of Hardin’s argument, and understanding is the first step to accepting. As noted earlier, the repetition of the words "we" and "us" is a language factor that persuades the audience to accept Hardin’s ideas because it implicates that he and his audience is of equal status. Besides the use of metaphors, Hardin also makes use of a famous Chinese proverb when he argues for wealthy nations to teach impoverished nations rather than just give. The Chinese proverb follows as, "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he will eat for the rest of his days" (Singer, 512). The utilization of something that is popular and well known allows for the audience to really understand what the author is arguing for, consequently Hardin’s use of the Chinese proverb allows his points to be more more widely accepted. Compared to Singer, Hardin’s language strategies are effective and successful in influencing his audience.

     Strong evidence provides an immeasurable amount of support to one’s argument. It’s difficult to accept one’s argument if it’s based on hypothetical examples and not hard statistical numbers. Providing sound evidence is yet another rhetorical strategy that Singer proves to be weak in. He primarily relies on hypothetical examples to support his argument. These hypothetical examples range from the story that occurs in the Brazilian film Central Station to the story of Bob and his beloved Bugatti. Singer even admits at point in his essay that "hypothetical examples can easily become farcical," yet he provides no other kinds of evidence to support his claims (Singer, 536). This leads his argument to be based on deductive premises and assumptions. Singer’s argument is not supported by hard facts, in conseqence, his credibility is not established and many of his points can be brushed off as merely theoretical. Singer’s inability to provide strong evidence to support his argument proves to be yet another flaw in the presentation of his argument because his audience cannot take his claims seriously.

     Contrastingly, Hardin provides concrete evidence and uses many statistics to argue his points. His only flaw is that he doesn’t consistently cite the sources that he attained the information from. In describing population rates, he states that in "1973, the U.S. has a population of 210 million people, who were increasing by 0.8 percent per year" (Hardin, 509). Hardin goes on writing about this rate without ever mentioning the source that he attained his information from. Even considering this flaw, Hardin still provides more credible evidence to support his argument than Singer does. He provides statisical numbers to describe population rates he uses these numbers to fortell the consequences that can occur in the future. This allows Hardin’s audience to take notice of his argument and not brush it off as mere theoretical talk. Hardin’s argument is based on inductive premises because the evidence he does provide is based on facts and are more logical than the hypothetical examples that Singer provides.

       The appeals that an author uses is important in creating the desired responses from the reader. Singer’s argument is primarily emotional. His intentions are to appeal to the emotions of his readers, hoping that this will persuade them and make them take action. The solutions that Singer prescribes are not based on logic and are not realistic. He calls for Americans whose income is $50,000 to donate $20,000 of it to people living in impoverished countries. To believe that American families can live off of a $30,000 allowance is absurd. Singer doesn’t take into consideration the status of the economy or ALL of the necessities that a family may need. There are variations between the needs of people and one standard sum of money cannot account for all of these necessities. So instead of using logic, Singer plays upon the emotions of his readers by making them feel guilty and shameful for living luxuriously. These emotions are characterized as negative and prove to be ineffective because making his readers feel bad about themselves will not persuade them to accept his ideas.

      Hardin’s argument is a mixture of both emotion and logic. He appeals to the emotional side of his audience by eliciting fear. The consequences of overpopulation can have a detrimental effect on the environment and this would be cause for concern for his readers. This examples proves how he relies more on negative emotions to persuade his audience. Hardin appeals to the logical side of his audience by giving realistic and logical examples that will occur as a result of overpopulation. These examples are based on numbers and not mere hypothetical illustrations such as the ones Singer describes. An example of Hardin using a mixture of logic and emotion to persuade his readers is when he states that, "to divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as people reprouduce at different rates... would guarantee that our grandchildren, and everyone else’s grandchildren would have only a ruined world to inhabit" (Hardin, 515). This example not only elicits emotions of fear in the audience for their families, but it also serves as a reminder that the consequences that Hardin describes are very plausible. Because Hardin not only relies on emotion to persuade his audience, but also incorporates logical reasoning, his argument holds more substance.

     The rhetorical strategies used by each author have their effects on persuading their audiences to either accept or disregard their arguments. In comparing the two texts, it was discovered that a mixture of logic and emotion, combined with sound evidence is what defines successful and effective rhetorical strategies. In this case, Garrett Hardin proves to be a success.