In “Consider the Lobster” David Foster Wallace has the opportunity to write a review for a magazine, Gourmet. Which is supposed to cover the Maine Lobster Festival held in the summer of 2003. However the review was not as expected, instead it was more based on ethics and morals in relation to the painful impact we have on lobsters, such as boiling them for Well. of our desires. By looking at Wallace's use of descriptive strategy we can see that the problem of animal cruelty is close at hand. This is important because most people intend to ignore morals when faced with this situation. Evaluating the strategy and what it creates; we can see how effective Wallace was in portraying his argument to readers. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Wallace's main argument is that we must treat all animals humanely, such as lobsters and others mentioned in this case. Use descriptive strategies to emotionally appeal to readers through pathos. Describing the festival how tasty lobster is and then concluding about how lobsters are cooked creates this emotion of shock. From there on Wallace confirms his main argument by giving us images of how lobsters can feel pain, whether they feel pain or not, and focuses on making the reader wonder why they ignore the obvious. Now, taking a look at Wallace's overall purpose, we can see the strengths and weaknesses that make up his argument. The description has an emotional appeal rather than constantly using logic. For example, he describes an image of "how lobsters hang on for dear life, just as humans would in any life threat." He uses clear language to represent his argument, along with limited use of hidden assumptions, and defines multiple ideas behind terms through the use of footnotes. The organization of his logic flows as he descriptively creates a thought about “how tasty lobsters are, then points towards the perspective that his readers should think about their morals and ethics.” On the other hand, taking both sides into consideration is not thorough enough to understand be fair. For example, he explains that “PETA works humanely towards animals, showcasing their morals”. However, the morals of the other side appear to remain questionable. He also uses one or the other fallacy when mentioning a statement said by a local that "they do their thing and we do our thing." These are some of the descriptive details that Wallace uses to get his point across. Using the descriptive strategy allows us to see the overall issue of animal cruelty. The points he makes using this strategy force us to agree that animals must be treated humanely. When he asks readers to imagine slaughtered livestock, he creates awareness that we impact all species equally, so lobsters should be no exception. The work provides us with a good way to think before acting, allowing questions to arise from our unconscious. For example, if we look at “the puppy farm seizure that occurred locally in February 2016.” We could use this article to challenge our thoughts on how horrible it is to treat any animal inhumanely. However, this work cannot provide us with the answers to those questions which could make it less credible in this respect. Here..