CAJ 3 - Rhetoric Comment

I comment on the rhetoric in this article:

http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/08/solar-roadways-crackpot-idea-or-ingenious-concept-video/

The overall rhetoric in the article “Solar Roadways: Crackpot Idea or Ingenious Concept?” written by Aaron Saenz is not very convincing. For me the main fault is that there is no ethical appeal. The author writes as if he was an expert on this topic and presents many arguments against the solar roadways but he never even tells the reader who he is or what his connection to the topic is. His pathetic appeal is not much better either. Throughout the whole article he uses no pathos. The main emotion I get from reading the article is anger but not because the author provoked it but because his writing style and his arguments are so bad. If depressing and angering the reader is his goal, he achieves it. The logic in the article is not satisfying either. He argues that solar roadways are too expensive and that asphalt roads are cheaper because they are expensive only on highways and not on small roads. However, he doesn’t mention that asphalt roads can never pay for themselves and therefore solar roadways are cheaper in any case, even if it takes 50 years to pay off. All in all the rhetoric in this article is very unconvincing.