Fredenberg 1

James Fredenberg
Mr. Salow
English 11
June 10, 2016

Join the Dark Side

In the publication Let There be Dark, Paul Bogard uses a wide array of persuasion to
influence awareness about light pollution. He uses evidence and reasoning fairly frequently, but
most notably, he uses pathos rather often, giving the readers a common ground with him in his
argument. This is most effective because of the poetic metaphors he uses to gain emotional
support. The power from his poetic emotional appeals outweighs his arguments using logic.
Throughout the article, Bogard uses logical appeals to make his argument sound legit, but
it has mixed results. Near the start, he mentions some of the physical impacts of light pollution
on the human body. He says Our bodies need darkness to produce the hormone melatonin,
which keeps certain cancers from developing, and our bodies need darkness for sleep. This
logic is sound, but he carries it even further on a slippery slope by adding diabetes, obesity, and
depression into the same thought. When this much of the argument is only tied into the topic by a
thread (sleep disorders), the reasoning sounds a little too severe. If he had tied it back into the
theme it would have sounded like more of an issue, but by carrying on and listing off unpleasant
disorders, it begins to sound more like a rant. This argument is not entirely illogical, but through
the perspective of the audience, it does not sound as strong as Bogard probably hoped it would.
His evidence-based arguments are better when they do not veer off-topic and blame depression
and obesity on light pollution. An example of a better argument came nearer to the end where he

Fredenberg 2
mentioned how cutting out light would save power. He says In the United States and Western
Europe, the amount of light in the sky increases an average of about 6% every year. Much of
this light is wasted energy, which means wasted dollars. This is a better logical argument
because he is able to tie a statistic into the overarching theme.
As good as his logos-based persuasion went, the power of his pathetic words are much
more striking. At the very beginning of the article, Bogard uses an appeal to emotion through his
childhood experience, rich with poetic description. He begins, At my familys cabin on a
Minnesota lake, I knew woods so dark that my hands disappeared before my eyes. I knew night
skies in which meteors left smoky trails across sugary spreads of stars. The past seems to come
to life in this opener, and it is portrayed as a very peaceful time. This is very effective because it
fulfills the purpose of an opener: to draw the audience in. With the emotional appeal, Bogard has
the audience thinking on his side right off the bat, paving the way for his future arguments. In
contrast with his peaceful painting of the past, Bogard uses words with disruptive and loud
connotations. When discussing the environmental impact of such actions, he starkly says
Ecological light pollution is like the bulldozer of the night, wrecking habitat and disrupting
ecosystems several billion years in the making. The words bulldozer, wreck, and
disrupting all get the audience to think of hectic construction sites or other negative images.
With these contrasting metaphors, the strength of Bogards emotional appeal is undeniable.
In conclusion, we can now see how the rhetoric in Bogards arguments worked well or
didnt. Bogards logical arguments were hit and miss because he would follow a slippery slope
without tying it back into his argument. On the contrary, his emotional arguments were
stunningly effective because of the way he was able to harness the power of poetry and contrast

Fredenberg 3
to gain the audiences belief. Overall, we can see that the effectiveness of Bogards emotional
appeals outweighed the mediocrity of his logical arguments.