One main difference between Rachel Carson’s silent spring and Winona Laduke’s a case for waawaatesi is Carson is concerned about the destruction of the entire environment, while LaDuke is only concerned about a certain part of the environment.
The argument put up in "A Case for Waawaatesi" is that while Silent Spring concentrated on the effects of pesticides, the subject of "A Case for Waawaatesi" was the effects of energy development.
While Carson's Silent Spring is a more fact-based book that examines the greater issue of pesticide use, LaDuke's "A Case for Waawaatesi" is a more intimate essay that details the environmental issues that her own tribe has faced. It focuses on the environmental effects of energy development, whereas Carson's research focuses on the environmental effects of pesticides.
The question seems incomplete. The complete question is:
Which best describes one main difference between Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and Winona LaDuke's "A Case for Waawaatesi"?
A. Carson is concerned about the destruction of the entire environment, while LaDuke is only concerned about a certain part of the environment.
B. Carson speaks of a possible future, while LaDuke discusses only what has happened in the past.
C. Carson believes that the past was just as bad as the present, while LaDuke believes that the present is worse than the past.
D. Carson offers facts and evidence to support her argument, while LaDuke appeals to readers' emotions.
Know more about silent spring here
brainly.com/question/1757714
#SPJ4
