Introduction
The essay The Corn is a Lie discusses the use of the ethanol and its impact on the environment from various perspectives. The essay has quite a catchy and interesting title, but at the same time, there is the professional expertise and the insider opinion. There are, however, some ideas and arguments to analyze, and the rhetoric content to discuss.
Analyzing ideas and arguments
Firstly, your goal as an author is to discuss the possibility of an another increase in oil prices for the United States that were threatened with the oil field strikes and the Iranian Revolution (Glozer 15). In my opinion, the reflection on the topic of the dangers of oil pollution leads the reader to the conclusion that ethanol, however, cannot be the cleaner solution. The distrust of that idea is supported by referring to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence Security Act according to which ethanol has a positive impact (Pimentel 208). I also admired the subpart addressed to the idea of how the effects of ethanol use may impact the environment on a larger scale because it was a very constructive critique.
The writing is very convincing, and it is abundant with fine details. For example, there is a passage on why ethanol is essentially biofuel produced from corn (Gupta and Demirbas 79), that leads to the formation of greenhouse gases (Biello).
There is also a point well made about how farmers justify the use of ethanol because it is economically better for them. The farming community also seems to be satisfied with the ethanol usage (Fahrenthold par.8). The reason for that is that it gives them a tempting perspective of the energy independence (“Ethanol 101”). The only problem is that I am not entirely sure that the audience will be able to grasp even without special knowledge. I had some difficulty in understanding the technical aspect. Therefore, there may be some improvement in terms of availability to the reader. However, I admired that your explanation combines brevity and technical scientific details.
Discussing structure and other means of the rhetoric content
Talking about the literary power of the essay, there is a strong emphasis on how deviously tempting the solution of ethanol is, describing in the literary details that even though the ethanol might have a lower economic cost, it is a dangerously big impact on the environment. The positive thing about the rhetorical power of the essay is that the position towards the ethanol use is clear, even though it discusses different opinions on the issue.
What concerns the structural aspect of the essay, it is built in the manner of providing convincing arguments. However, improvement can be employed at the stylistic level because the stylistic devices and expressive means sometimes disagree with the academic style of writing. To my mind, it adds to the expressive aspect of the text but disregards the content. I would suggest some less radical expressive means that would more lightly interact with the scientific elements of the essay.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I assume that there may be some improvements in terms of availability to the reader, and at the stylistic level to make stylistic devices and expressive means lighter. However, in general, it has a very strong rhetoric and constructive arguments and counterarguments. The paper expands on the position towards them, and tries to apply them to the discussion from different perspectives.
Works Cited
Biello, David. “Intoxicated on Independence: Is Domestically Produced Ethanol Worth the Cost?” Scientific American, 2011. Web.
“Ethanol 101.” American Coalition for Ethanol. Web.
Fahrenthold, David. “‘Green’ Fuel May Damage The Bay.” The Washington Post, 2007. Web.
Glozer, Ken G. Corn Ethanol: Who Pays? Who Benefits? Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2011. Print.
Gupta, Ram, and Ayhan Demirbas. Gasoline, Diesel, and Ethanol Biofuels from Grasses and Plants. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.
Pimentel, David. “Biofuel Food Disasters and Cellulosic Ethanol Problems.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 29.3 (2009): 205-12.