Is Carson's technique of describing environmental problems in a fictional town in Silent Spring effective? Explain.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring is a creative nonfiction book about the dangers of pesticides and their detrimental effects on the environment. The main goal of Carson's text is to raise awareness about these harmful effects and to inspire people to change their habits regarding pesticide use.
To answer your question, it is important to keep this main goal in mind. On the one hand, one could certainly argue that Carson's use of a fictional town to describe the environmental effects of pesticides is effective in achieving her goal. This technique serves as a metaphorical illustration of what can happen should widespread, indiscriminate pesticide use continue as it has. This lets the reader visualize what could happen, making it more real for him or her.
Furthermore, at the time Carson wrote her book, there were few studies or cases in which pesticide use was shown to cause these effects. This was not because the effects didn't exist but rather because it was underreported and undocumented. As a result, Carson uses the fictional scenario to demonstrate how these things could happen, making it an effective addition to the text.
Conversely, one could argue that Carson's use of the fictional town is ineffective precisely for the same reasons. One might assert that Carson's fictionalized accounts of environmental detriment do not carry the same weight as factual data, thereby undermining her claim that pesticides are harmful.
Personally, I think there is more evidence to support this technique being effective within the context of Carson's main goal.