I think that one of the most specific examples of scientific significance in Carson's work is the use of ecological arguments against pesticides. Carson does not appeal to the emotional element or continue in a ranting manner to prove her point. She is a scientist, first and foremost. Her ecological awareness arguments as to how the use of pesticides break a cycle of biodiversity and ecology are some of the most persuasive against pesticides. Essentially, Carson lays out an argument as to why there is a fragile balance in the natural setting. Adhering to this structure of ecological construction is vitally important for all organisms that inhabit the planet. It is in the use of ecology that she is able to make a solid argument as to why pesticides are so destructive and endanger so much life on the planet. In addition to this, Carson uses scientific analysis to put forth the argument that it might be best to make sure that solutions to problems embrace an ecological focus in the solving of them. Instead of pesticides, Carson suggests that the introduction of natural predators will both solve the problem of pests and maintain the ecological balance that binds all organisms. In this, Carson excels in being able to present her findings as an environmental scientist who grasps the most important elements of ecology in her analysis.