Brendon MH Larson argues that biologists utilizing militaristic and combative rhetoric to emphasize their arguments are actually hindering their ability to coherently get across the true effects of a particular invasive species. Larson believes that this type of attacking and berating writing style contributes to the development of an inaccurate interpretation of the effects of foreign species on a particular ecosystem. He also believes that this militaristic language undermines the validity of the scientific data presented can potentially lead to a social dilemma. One of Larson’s main points is that while combative rhetoric may spark the attention of a large audience at first, this sporadic drama will soon subside and in long term the issue of foreign invasion is forgotten without the passing of any remedial methods.

In my own literature review I was a “victim” of using militaristic rhetoric however, I disagree with Larson’s main argument. “This creature has proven that it has the potential to unravel the very fibers of the food web established in its habitat and thus poses as a severe threat to indigenous species of the lakes.” (Cafaro 2010) This quote was taken from my literature review and is in reference to the invasion of the spiny water flea into the Great Lakes. In my paper, I believe that  utilizing diction that further stresses the negative effects of a particular invasive species will help to drive the message home. By using words that strike out to the audience, the message being portrayed will be left resonating in their minds and hopefully inspire further action to be taken. I agree with Larson in that people should not simply throw out combative terms merely for the sake of attracting attention, however I do believe that if used properly, militaristic diction can indeed draw a more substantial amount of focus to the issues being presented.