Verlyn klinkenborg, our vanishing night
1. what is the primary implication of the first sentence of the essay?
why would the writer begin this way?
2. notice how klinkenborg presents causes first, with claims to
follow. why not the reverse, with his claim first?
3. paragraph 2 begins with a very strong assertion: "this kind of
engineering is no different than damming a river." do you agree
with klinkenborg? why or why not?
4. in paragraph 2, klinkenborg claims, “light pollution is largely
the result of bad lighting design," and later suggests that it is also
a result of too much lighting. why doesn't he say that here?
5. find evidence of subjectivity in the first five paragraphs. how
does that affect the cogency of klinkenborg's argument?