At a time when people are so hitched on technology that they'll rather stay awake and use it instead of sleeping, Paul Bogard tries to get everyone to understand the danger that light is doing not just to one-self, but to the earth itself. He does this by using cautionary diction and congruent syntax.
Bogard uses detailed diction that bring pathos into his argument. He uses words like "disappeared", "stars", "rapidly", "darkness", and "irreplaceable" to make the audience first picture themselves in the Minnesota lake looking at the starts with Bogard, then make them feel distressed and concerned about losing such a beautiful view. Its as if he is trying to make the audience feel the sadness he, himself feels about how if the world keeps going this way, the earth will be too polluted to be able to see the sky. He is concerning them, in a way that makes it so personal …show more content…
He asks,"Who knows what this vision of the night sky might inspire in each of us, in our children or grandchildren?" This interaction makes the audience think about their own personal lives, and not just their lives but their children lives (and we all want the best for our kids right?) and again, is used in a good effort to persuade the audience with the knowledge of their narcissistic mind self. The author also uses commas to give the reader as much information as possible. The use of repeated and extensive commas help not make the reader feel overwhelm with all the information. He writes, "Sleep disorders have been linked to diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular diseases and depression, and recent..." that in opposition not just scare the reader but also bring a sense of comfort and a more "homeness" vibe as if a total stranger wasn't telling them this information.
In Conclusion, Paul Bogard uses varied diction, and extensive syntax to bring to the reader the arugment that light pollution is killing the planet and hurting