Essays that are primarily focused on the worlds current environmental cataclysm and its impact on man-kind fascinate me. Which is exactly why I took a significant liking to “The obligation to endure” by Rachel Carson. In our current world there are several different ways to control the insects and pests that make their homes on our farms. New chemicals are being produced everyday, and according to Rachel, these insecticides can have a harmful affect on humans and the environment. What we regard as “pests” are able to adapt to the chemicals we use, so more deadlier chemicals are in demand for production. Carson is a passionate environmentalist with a clear concern for the well-being of the worlds inhabitants. This is very apparent in the style which Carson conveys herself in her writing. Rachel states, “Can anyone believe it is possible to lay down such a barrage of poisons on the surface of the earth without making it unfit for all life?” Carson seems pretty educated about the applications of pesticides and the possible effects that can occur from these chemicals. I feel that Rachel has a specific target audience whom she is pointing this worded guilt pistol at, that target would be those who use chemicals, like a farmer. Another audience would be the people concerned with the relationship between people and the environment and what’s done to protect the environment from man. I suppose Rachels excerpts could hold potential for someone interested in the improvement of the environment, and need some arguable facets to benefit their cause. The author makes a crucial point that people are unaware some of the chemicals used in insecticides have a negative affect not only on pests, but also harmless animals and insects. Therefore, the insecticides are passed through these creatures and agriculture on to people, who are eventually affected as well. This point then weaves into that not only is wildlife at risk, but peoples health is in danger. Rachel makes her opinion on chemicals pretty evident when she states that insecticides should be referred to as biocides instead. In addition, the way that Carson writes her paper is from a logical perspective. She presents the significance of the problem regarding her topic, and then she backs up her opinion with facts and evidence. She elucidates the negative effects insecticides have, then she presents a healthy possible alternative to the problem. Rachel explains what the problem is, the significance of the problem, and how the problem could be improved or fixed. Carsons plan of attack works because she makes her point and provides concrete reasoning and logic.