Thoreau or Krauker - a snob? Better than an Argumentative Genius? In a world filled with art and literature, how can someone determine the effectiveness of an argument? What gives the words on the page significance and how does it hold value in the mind of its viewers? How does the message convey itself and does it merit its worth to the audience? Why does it stand out amongst the others? In the works of Thoreau and Krauker, authors who have cultivated the art of writing about the outdoors, how have they both reinforced their claims? Krauker’s non-fiction book Into the Wild and Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience. When both compared, which of their arguments stands above the others? Good and effective arguments are constructed from the foundation…show more content… In Rogerian-style arguments, the main focus is not to contest against the audience, but rather to elaborate and understand. In addition, this is not the only indicator of Krauker’s Into the Wild being a Rogerian argument as he also says “Had I not returned [...] as they now say of him - that I had a death wish [...] In my case and, I believe in the case of Chris McCandless, that was very different from wanting to die.” (Krauker pg 155-156). Krauker’s own experience helps readers understand what exactly Chris went through and helps put into perspective what Chris experiences. By elaborating on his journey, he was able to share his stories and his viewpoint on Chris’ endeavors, helping readers understand Chris’ logical thought process. Krauker’s book Into the Wild shows several signs of inductive reasoning. Krauker makes light of this in chapter 8, where Krauker expands on three explorers who also explored the Alaskan wilderness. Krauker explains that Rosellini, an educated man, died by suicide, John Waterman died by claiming
