TOW #4 "In a Planet-or-Not Debate" (article)

                On National Geographic’s website, Nadia Drake elaborates upon the ongoing controversy of whether or not Pluto is a planet. She unearths information about the ancient Greek as well as the thoughts of modern scientists. It is obvious that Drake did her research on the topic at hand. Pathos is not present in the article as much as ethos and logos. The large amount of logic used is greatly effective and needed since the topic is a science-based debate. In the text, Drake mentions an audience in Cambridge, Massachusetts came to an agreement that Pluto was in fact a planet. The audience included teachers, the public, and scientists. This appeals to logos because there is a diverse group of backgrounds that made that decision. In addition, that the only time Pluto was decided not a planet was when the International Astronomical Union (IAU) voted on it. They declared it a dwarf planet, which is not even a planet at all. This is probably the strongest pathos shown. It makes the audience think, “Well, is everyone else thinks it is but the IAU, why are we only listening to them?” Most likely because the IAU has the automatic credibility the public lacks. Drake makes sure to portray both ends of the spectrum. Noting that in the end, it all comes down to what the definition of planet is at the time. The definition always changes, Drake mentions back when the sun fit the definition and Earth did not. The logos is definitely the strongest part of the article.