Keystone Pipeline

There have been numerous debates and discussions to whether the Keystone pipeline is good or bad. Sen. John Hoeven wrote here supporting it and Brendan Smith wrote here arguing against it. They both employ the power of language to support their claim. John uses many words with positive connotations like "big," "finally within reach," "focused," "win-win," "good," etc. Even though these words are a bit vague, he does not simply move on with the next topic. Instead, he explains those words throughout his text so that his choice of words are clear. He establishes good ethos by connecting himself through the topic. He talks about his involvement in this project as a senator and Governor and addresses some other people's point of views on the topic. 

Brenden starts out with a picture with fire burning. It evokes a feeling of negativity when looked at. He tries to establish his ethos by throwing out random statistics. This is just jargon and would be confusing to the average layman. However, this does in fact boost his ethos as they come from credible sources. He brings out these statistics, and then he goes on to call the reader to take action. Establishing that the average layman may not understand what he is saying, all he will understand is the call and be under the impression that the argument was really well made. He turns every statistic into a big deal. He associates the pipeline with words with a negative connotation like "threat," "extreme," "floods," "bad," etc. 

Both of them do a good job establishing their point through a clear thesis and provide evidence to back that up in an understandable order. As I have mentioned, the argument against provided an emotion evoking picture. It also appeals to reader, just in a confusing way. The argument does the same, just in a more understandable way. Both of them establish pathos by ending their text with a call to action regarding the future which makes the reader feel a feeling of action and motivation. 

Even though I have not properly researched this subject and do not know a lot about it, from just these two articles, the first is more convincing as it was more clear. Although this was the case for me, it is understandable that other people would fall under the power of the second article's pathos.