Wallace, in the early stages of the piece, mainly develops his ethos by simply describing the area and the festival itself, illustrating the festival as "joyful and lucrative and loud" with "attendance over 100,000". He even notices the "free pamphlets with recipes, eating tips, and Lobster Fun Facts", proving his knowledge of everything involving the festival. In the next few paragraphs, Wallace goes on to explain the entomology and eating history of the lobster to his audience of high class eaters, again proving his validity and understanding of the topic over his already knowledgeable audience. Later, Wallace writes that he isn't "trying to give... a PETA-like screed here", separating himself from a group that most likely isn't supported by the readers of the essay. Thus, he establishes himself as a neutral speaker who can, and should, be trusted.

Wallace's use of ethos eventually allows his use of logos to further strengthen his argument. By successfully establishing himself as a voice to be trusted, Wallace is able to lead a scientific discussion about the human and lobster "cerebral complex", and eventually disprove the Main Lobster Promotion Council's claim that lobsters have "no cerebral cortex, which in humans is the area of the brain that gives the experience of pain." Wallace also utilizes deductive reasoning to argue how the consumption of lobster is unethical. He begins with the general statement that "the... criterion [if an animal is in pain] is whether the animal demonstrates behavior associated with pain", and then smugly points out how "it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics... not to see struggling [and] thrashing... as just such pain-behavior."

Much of Wallace's argument ultimately relies on pathos, relating the lobster's pain to a human's. He vividly describes "ways to kill your lobster", including "driv[ing] a sharp heavy knife point-first into... the midpoint between the lobster's eyestalks", then relates this to the third eye on a human's body, forcing the readers to visualize such a violent action on a human rather than a lobster. Throughout the piece, also, Wallace repeatedly personifies the lobster, reporting that the lobster "cling[s]" to the container, "like a person trying to keep from going over the edge of a roof". By describing the lobster as an emotional, aware being, Wallace is able to disprove the argument that "lobsters' brains [can't feel]", successfully questioning the ethics of consuming lobsters.