REHUGO CURRENT EVENTS

Lindsey Schrock

Mr. Soeth, per. 2

English 3 AP

February 16, 2011

REHUGO Analysis: Current Events/Opposing Articles

A. Article 1: “Florissant Mayor: Riverview Casino Project 'Lifeline' for North St. Louis County”    by Kelsey Volkmann.

   Article 2: “St. Louis Loses on the Riverview Casino Bet” by Gloria Broderick.

B. Articles—see citations attached

C. Both articles discuss the local controversy regarding whether or not to build a casino complex in the Spanish Lake and Riverview area of North St. Louis County. The first article claims that establishing the proposed complex will bring the community over two thousand employment opportunities and millions of dollars in revenue. The second article stresses the natural beauty and tranquility that surrounds the agricultural area, and how a sense of sanctity and appreciation for the community would be lost if a large complex was built on the preserved wetlands.

D. Evidence:

1. Article 1:

a. Logos: In Volkmann’s article, she creates a list of potential employment opportunities that would become available to locals recently affected by the increasing unemployment rates.  In the first paragraph, Volkmann provides quantitative data regarding the amount of jobs that will be necessary in order to make the project a success, therefore illustrating to readers the benefits of supporting the complex. This statement presents an idea that readers feel they cannot contradict; the evidence is given in the form of statistical data, which effectively appeals to logic.

b. Ethos: Volkmann gives credence to her argument by providing opinions given by reputable sources who serve as experts in the subject regarding the casino and the town. In the second paragraph, she quotes the mayor, who plays a major role in the community. By choosing to utilize this specific source, readers see that the mayor, who evidently cares for the community and wishes to see it prosper, is in favor of creating the complex.

2. Article 2:

a. Pathos: The second article presents evidence regarding the negative and irreversible ways in which the new buildings would affect the environment, as well as the wildlife that survive off the wetlands as their natural habitat. The article states that eliminating the agricultural wetlands that absorb the flood waters and “provide habitats for millions of migratory waterfowl, eagles, and other wildlife” would be diminished and destroyed. By indirectly suggesting that animals would suffer a consequential fate due to the ‘selfish’ motives of community members to gain more money, readers feel empathy towards the wildlife and feel a need to do their part in order to protect them.

b. Logos: Broderick also appeals to logic by listing ways in which the community would suffer extreme financial losses; she directly contradicts statements made by the companies assisting in funding the project by saying that the new complex would, instead of bringing income to the community, “cost all taxpayers millions more as they pay for increased...storm water charges, police, emergency, and fire service, road maintenance and social services” (paragraph four). Once readers are exposed to these facts, they realize that the complex will indeed cost several millions in tax dollars, and they therefore no longer wish to support the project. Appeal to logic reappears when Broderick refers to the increase in “air, light, and noise and water pollution” (paragraph six). Readers feel that issues concerning safety take precedence over potential revenue gained from a casino. By appealing to logic and addressing various issues that pose a latent threat to the well-being of community members, Broderick successfully persuades the audience that the risks associated with the project outweigh the benefits.

E. Rhetorical Strategies

1. Article 1:

a. Exemplification: In paragraph two, the author lists a series of jobs that will arise for both the construction and maintenance of the casino complex. In the second paragraph, a list of examples of potential occupations is given. “…carpenters, ironworkers, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, electricians, plumbers, laborers…” The author uses this rhetorical strategy in order to turn the generalized statement: ‘many jobs will become available’ into a more concrete one. In order to successfully prove that people will in fact gain employment, Volkmann must provide examples and solidify the content of her argument.

b. Concession: An important aspect of gaining the intended audience’s approval for the casino is acknowledging specific counterarguments that may arise in future debates regarding the project and providing a sufficient explanation, or conceding any opposition. In the fifth paragraph, the author writes, “Whether you are for or against gambling, the fact is that it is legal in Missouri and there will be one more license issued…Rather than worrying about competition between casinos in the region, the region’s leaders should be concerned that these jobs will be lost to another part of the state. North County especially could use another economic engine. If we want housing values to remain high, then there have to be jobs to keep families here.” By addressing a counterargument and immediately refuting and proving a point about the necessity of a casino and the economic relief it will bring, the author effectively persuades the audience that a casino is essential for the employment and financial stability of the community.

2. Article 2:

a. Cause and Effect: Cause and effect is the foundation for Broderick’s argument. She carefully addresses contributing causes to her decision to oppose the project proposal, and does not merely jump to the generalized conclusion that a casino would be bad for the community. Throughout the course of the article, she discusses multiple factors that would have an overall negative impact on the community, including the elimination of wildlife and agricultural land the complex would bring, the millions of dollars required from local taxpayers in order to fund proper installation of sewage and police services, and the dramatic increase in air and water pollution due to the location of the complex (adjacent to the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers). By providing such instances and scenarios, readers wish to prevent any of the negative events from becoming a reality; therefore no longer wishing to pursue the community’s casino complex project.

            b. Comparison and Contrast: The article compares the claims made by opposing articles or parties and contrasts them to what the author believes will occur in reality. The section of the article labeled “Casino ‘Benefits’ are Bogus” directly addresses several claims made by the North County Development Group, who is backing the project, and refutes them. For example, Broderick contradicts numerous claims regarding plentiful employment opportunities and a large net revenue by saying, “No significant new net revenue because of the increased costs of public services supporting the development.  Any increased revenue would be offset by moving current sources of revenue as the casino cannibalizes other operations…Promised new jobs would simply be a transfer of jobs from existing casinos or would be taken by employees of existing casinos; minimum wage jobs do little to support families and communities.” Contrasting the claims made by the North County Development Group with logical facts gathered from research prevents members of the community from being deceived by promises of money and employment opportunities.

F. While the establishment of a luxurious and spacious casino complex would provide numerous employment opportunities, at least during periods of construction, placing a casino in a rural area that values natural beauty and wildlife such as the community of Riverview in St. Louis would greatly decrease the sense of pride and tranquility community members feel towards their town. The region had previously been designated as a Columbia Bottom Conservation Area, and was meant for the enjoyment of community members and wildlife alike. The instituting of such establishments would contravene the principles of an idyllic, nature-preserving community. The designated region in St. Louis obviously possesses a sense of pride and treasures the natural beauty that surrounds them; to destroy acres of wetlands with large buildings and polluted roadways would definitely attract tourists, but would also diminish the level of local welfare. I personally feel that a casino would harm the community more than it would benefit it, and I strongly disagree with this proposal.

Article 1:

Volkmann, Kelsey. "Florissant Mayor: Riverview Casino Project 'Lifeline' for North St. Louis County." St. Louis Business Journal (2010). BizJournals.com. American City Business Journals, Inc., 27 May 2010. Web. 16 Feb. 2011.

 Article 2:

Broderick, Gloria. "St. Louis Loses on the Riverview Casino Bet." Sierra Club Eastern Missouri Group. SierraScape, 2009. Web. 16 Feb. 2011. <http://missouri.sierraclub.org/home.aspx?/emg/sierrascape/s2009m10/05_casino.html>.