Rhetorical Analysis: Water Scarcity

A man by the name of Albert Szent-Gyorgyi once said “Water is life's mater and matrix, mother and medium. There is no life without water.” His quote is simple yet powerful because of the truth behind it. Water scarcity is a recurring problem all around the world, even in the United States. It is considered one of three major natural resource problems around the globe that harm both Mother Nature and us as a race. I have found two articles where the author’s both point out key facts and data in order to argue that water shortages will soon affect everyone on our beautiful planet if we are not careful and find a solution sooner rather than later. The only difference is the authors write their articles from the view of two different disciplines naturally giving them a different rhetorical approach. The first article “Water Scarcity, Water Reuse and Environmental Safety” (We will call this article 1 for the sake of the analysis) comes from an environmental science angle because of the author’s professional work in that field. The author uses professional organization, a plethora of sources that he has researched and a organization of his ideas in a rapid and skillful way to try and convince the audience about the immediate dangers of the lack water and why we need to take action. Contrastingly, the article “Water Use and Development in Arid Regions” (I will refer to it as article 2) comes from economics and political science. This author uses a more relaxed organization method, less sources referred but more data centered charts, and a less direct approach of his ideas to influence the audience with his solutions to the problem. Overall I think both authors use a great deal of rhetorical devices to show their support of fixing the water scarcity problem but approaching it from two different rhetorical directions can differentiate the same argument on a subject.

First off, I want to talk about article one’s very definitive organization style. Clearly the target audience is a group of scholars in the science and natural resources field that have a strong background in this specific field meaning this is not ideal for an everyday reader such as you and I. Because of this I think the author is trying to influence a sense of urgency over his intended audience. Overall, the author splits up his scholarly article by bringing up different topics and then analyzing that topic with sources and research. Many refer to this style as classification order or topical order meaning the author does this to best suit his argument or purpose. In this case the author goes from a case study about Middle Eastern countries to the impact on water quality and finally finishing with the global environmental repercussions of shortages of water. He does this in a manner to show order of complexity, which is starting with less convoluted arguments and finishing with the more complicated ones. The case study about Middle Eastern countries is an easy topic to begin the discussion on for two reasons. The section overall is short which means its very unlikely someone could get caught up in it. Secondly the topic is a broad overview setting up the rest of the articles, which become more complicated. The second and third topics become very in depth and could become terribly easy to get lost in but they are more intended for those who are truly trying to change the outcome of the problem. I think that the author uses these specific rhetorical devices of organization to not only give himself credibility but also put pressure on the audience to take a stand against this problem.

This map shows the stress levels of water resources in the Middle East

The organization in article 2 is very much different than that of article 1. Article 2 really is focused around a style where, like article 1, the author goes from topic to topic but unlike the first article, this article creates a flow between each point by connecting each one to the previous. Because of this, I think the intended audience is just as scholarly as the audience from the first but leaning more on the economic and political side of the issue which doesn't come across as professional but more of an everyday type read. This author, I think, uses a process or sequential order so that each paragraph continues to build on the last ultimately leading to the conclusion. This is important to know as an audience because each step in the process relies on the previous so in order to follow his position you must be able to understand all parts to fully grasp it. The author of article 2 brings up four major topics to talk about ranging from economic models to regional politics. This wide range of material gives this author credibility because he shows his vast knowledge of the subject. This invokes the audience to realize that this problem affects more than just people who don’t have access to clean drinking water. Overall, author of article 2 approaches this topic in a more casual style than that of author 1 which gives the article a more calming feeling helping to show the audience of the economic and political impacts and solutions of water scarcity.

The second largely noticeable contrast between the two articles is that of the sources and data that they used in their respective articles. Both articles have plenty of referred sources at the end of their articles so that’s no the difference. The difference is that article 1 incorporates numerical data and refers to his sources throughout the article while in article 2, Mr. Allan doesn’t specifically refer to any research and only blends in data in the form of charts. The incorporation of data and specific references gives article one that professional feel I spoke about earlier. It also gives cold hard facts that can’t be easily ignored when persuading the intended audience. The one problem this has is that no matter how much experience you’ve had with water resource management, the facts become overbearing leading to the article becoming increasingly difficult to read if you aren’t careful and take your time. On the other hand article two doesn’t force you to read and comprehend facts because the author does that and regurgitates it back for you. This gives the article a more composed feeling. The charts that the author composes to show his data are very clearly explained in the article as well as on the chart itself with the axis’ and captions. Article 2 uses data to support the author’s argument whereas article 1 uses data as the argument. What I mean by this is article one would still have a pretty strong reasoning without their data but article one would be less effective so I think it takes away from the Mr. Shevah’s credibility. Data and references are both used a lot and effectively but in different styles giving the intended audience an overwhelming-if-not-careful feeling from article one zand refined piece of work from number two.

Lastly, I want to compare the level of thinking required to understand the topics presented although I'm not stating that either topic is non scholarly. For article one Shevah shapes his argument so that it comes across as a very advanced argument and he does this through a lot of narrow diction and acronyms that could be tricky. This shows the audience that, unless the author is making stuff up, he has a deep background in the subject giving him loads of credibility. Shevah goes in depth at a much quicker pace specifically when he talks about the Middle East. I’m sure he could have talked about this for hours but he defines the problem and explains why with no “fluff” involved. Article 2 on the other hand doesn’t organize his article with such said diction instead he uses more commonplace knowledge and words that provides an easier read. He adds extras that probably could be left out which lengthens Mr. Allan’s article quite as bit. This article uses diction that could be understood by almost anyone regardless of their prior knowledge. As I stated earlier, article two requires you to read the whole article to get the central point where article one can be divulged into separate points. Although article one gets to the point faster, it may not be helpful because there could be confusion within the essay. Article 2 kind of slows things down with less expert diction and more explanation but could be seen as adding too much obsolete sentences that don’t help the overall structure of the article.

The two articles I chose to analyze approach the problem of water scarcity with a hope that something will be done to improve the current situation. The two authors come from two different backgrounds with Shevah coming from an environmental and natural resource discipline and Allan coming from an economics and political science history. Because of this differentiation, the rhetorical styles present in the articles are contrasting. Examining this contrast showed a difference in essay structure organization, use of data and references and the organization of the argument as a whole. Because of these differences the articles are shaped very offbeat of each other but at the same time trying to achieve the same goal.


Allan, J.A. "Water Use and Developments in Arid Regions." Onlinelibrary.wiley.com. Receil, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2015

Shevah, Yehuda. "Water scarcity, water reuse, and environmental safety" Pure and Applied Chemistry, 86.7 (2014): 1205-1214. Retrieved 20 Apr. 2015, from doi:10.1515/pac-2014-0202