Audience and Genre

Unfortunately, I am not writing to lesbian vegan urbanites between the ages of 35 and 40.  Even still, it is critical for me to pinpoint my audience and more importantly figure out how I will reach this specific group.  Here are some of my ideas...

Hunt, Tara. "Audience" 09/09/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

Professors/ Researchers at Universities across America

Many professors at universities may have already been doing research with CRISPR Cas9 on animals.  Now that the door has opened for testing on human embryos, they scientists are either interested in how this will affect the future of their research or how they can make sure real change comes about.

An article in a scientific magazine would be an ideal way of spreading this information to this group of people.  This would take the form of a scholarly article in a magazine such as Nature.  It might look like this or this.

A speech at a scientific convention would also be an effective way of conveying this information to this group.  This speech might take place at the Improving Biomedical Research 2015: Challenges and Solutions conference.  It might look like this or this. 

Young Couples and New Parents (Ages 20-30)

The controversy of genetically modifying human embryos concerns this group for many reasons.  They may be infuriated with the testings as they have a very deep connection to babies and what child birth means.  Others may be concerned over what the future of child birth will look like with the possibilities of designer babies.  Others may even being considering this new technology for their own baby.

A video that goes viral on Facebook would have a great potential for reaching this generation of people.  A social media video may look like this or this.

Another effective way to reach this group would be a news article.  Many articles on the Washington Post or CNN websites have easy access on iPhones.  These news articles would look something like this or this.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

Polski, Anna. "Social Media" 02/02/2014
via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

As this is my last semester of English, I'd like to think this is my last annotated bibliography.  Unfortunately, I'm assuming even the engineering field requires you to annotate your bibliographies.  But if I'm allowed to dream, here's to the last time I have to do this.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

Narrowing My Focus

Linforth, Pete. "Question Mark" 3/16/2015
via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

When your teacher includes in the assignment "limit yourself to 2 or 3" I can't help but laugh.  Very few students (even honors students) are so enthused about an assignment that they have difficulties "limiting" themselves to do less work.  But since my professor so graciously made us limit ourselves, I explored three of my questions instead of just two.

• Who has control of whether or not testing on embryos will continue?

It’s interesting to consider the practical steps that can be taken against this controversy.  People can voice their opinions all day long, but who is it that has the direct power to create change?

• What are the immediate risks of this technology spreading?

This question explores if this is a time sensitive debate and whether or not we have to come to a consensus right now.  Scientists say the technology is far from being usable.  Does that mean there are no immediate consequences?

• Were there protests in China or at the university?

Much of my research so far has revolved around what many Americans think and what white scientists think.  What was the reaction from the general public of China?  Does their culture incline them to freak out as well?

Questions About Controversy

There is a Gaelic proverb that says "If you want an audience, start a fight."  That is exactly what I intend to do as I construct my public argument concerning the genetic testing of human embryos.  This is the controversy I researched in Project 1, but I have more questions I need answered...

Bottin, Gianpaolo. "Alpine Ibex Fighting"
via Close View of Nature. Creative Commons License.

• Who has control of whether or not testing on embryos will continue?
• Who will immediately affected if the testing continues?
• Who else is testing embryos or using CRISPR other the scientists at Sun Yatsen?
• What are the Chinese researchers doing now that their research is under controversy?
• What will happen if someone declares the research as unethical?
• What are the risks of this technology spreading?
• How long was it after CRISPR was developed that the Chinese researchers tested human embryos?
• How long did Science refuse to publish the findings?
• What kind of precautions/ terms did the researchers have to follow (if any at all)?
• Who know about the research before the test results came out?
• Are those of the Sun Yatsen University as appalled as those in America?
• Were there protests in China or at the university?
• Who was the first person/ group that got hold of the research?
• Who was the first person to really speak out against the controversy in the public?
• Have any large movements started online or in social media about the controversy (hashtags)?

Reflection on Project 2

Libertová, Lenka. "Child's Reflection"
 07/20/2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

Logan Pearsall Smith once said, “Every author, however modest, keeps a most outrageous vanity chained like a madman in the padded cell of his breast.”  Unfortunately, I’ve never quite had this confidence about my writing.  I often avoid reflection on my works as I know that even the smallest mistakes will make me cringe.  But in the faith of becoming a better writer, I will take another look at my process of completing my rhetorical analysis.

The majority of my revision process was focused on accommodating my reader’s needs.  This included making sure my purpose matched the guidelines of the essay and my points were thoroughly explained.  I revised my thesis to include the message of why rhetoric was so important.  This gave my paper more analysis to explore in the body paragraphs.

I also focused heavily on the introduction and conclusion as they were not written with the audience in mind.  My introduction originally was exciting and hooking, but it left the reader confused about what exactly my essay was going to be about.  My first conclusion did little for my reader.  My revised conclusion gave something new to the reader, something to think about, and successfully wrapped up the point I was trying to get across.

I felt that these changes transformed my purpose as the author.  More than just showing my reader what I found, I was revealing to them why it mattered.  This turned my role as author from expert with a lot of information to teacher with information to pass on.  My readers are now more inclined to hear what I have to say.

There was a major flaw in my paper in which I seemed to completely contradict myself.  As the author, I knew the article I was analyzing in depth, but my reader had never read the article.  Thus, many of my local revisions included clarifying my points and making sure my sentences came across with the correct intention.  Otherwise, my readers were left very confused.

I also went through and made sure my words were carefully chosen.  When describing rhetoric, it is important to capture the exact feelings that the specific strategies create.  I wanted to make sure my readers knew exactly the sub text of the article since they had never read it.

Through this reflection process, I’ve realized how much writing is less about what you have to say and more about how the reader take it.  Even if you as the author think that your words exactly capture your message, your audience may not get the same thing out of it.  This is not a bad thing, but as an author you have to consider the impact what you are writing will have on the reader, and if this is really what you were intending.


Reflection:

I was surprised to find how my peers had almost the same reflection process even if their paper was totally different.  Austin See had to completely dump his first draft which I didn't do.  But the reasons behind both of our reflection were the same, it was all about bettering understand the audience and figuring out what our relationship to the reader.  Allison Perger discussed how she in a way put herself in the shoes of the reader.  I realized I also had to do this to make sure my readers would comprehend what I was trying say and to see if they would actually listen.

Project 2: Rhetorical Analysis

The final draft of my rhetorical analysis.

Punctuation: Part 2

Messina, Chris.  "Terms and Conditions" 06/10/2009
via Flickr.Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. 

Back to the "Terms and Conditions" of writing conventions.  It's surprising what you learn when you don't quickly scroll to the bottom to find the "Agree" button.

Comma

Commas are often misused in separated essential and nonessential elements of a sentence.  If the phrase is impertinent to the sentence, no commas are needed.  Commas prevent confusion when words are omitted or the author needs the reader to take a pause when reading so the correct intention comes across.

Quotations

Quotation marks can be used around words used as words, but those words can also be italicized.  This same idea can apply to titles of books and movies.

Other Punctuation

The dash sets off parentheticals and lists but does not need spaces around it.  Ellipses are used to short an omission of words in a quote.  When it indicates an omission of more than 3 sentences, the ellipsis is accompanied by a period.

Project 2 Edit

My most frequent mistake of punctuation in Project 2 was my misuse of commas.  In this sentence, “For almost 20 years, the public has argued the issue of global warming, its existence, its causes, its solutions, and its long term effects” the comma following “global warming” needs to be a dash since the list that follows uses commas.  The use of a dash will help break the sentence up correctly so that the reader understands the intention of the author.  In the sentence, “Their ability to control the reader through their command of language plays a deciding factor in whether or not their voice will be heard, and more importantly whether it will be impactful” the comma needs to be omitted as it is not followed by and independent clause.  The comma breaks the sentence in the wrong spot confusing the intention.

Paragraph Analysis 2

CJ. "The Thinker close" 02/04/2007
via Wikimedia.  Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Uported License.

If the old saying “You are your harshest critic” is true, this exercise will prove to be very beneficial for my rhetorical analysis.  Looking at my paper in terms of its individual paragraphs allowed me to see which paragraphs were lacking in comparison to the other ones.  To see my process, click here.

After completing this process, I realized how much I assume my reader knows as much as I do.  I am the expert in the author’s rhetorical strategies since I’ve read the article numerous times.  In addition, the prompt requires that I am an expert in analyzing rhetoric, and I need to clearly show how to do this in my paper.  I cannot leave any point or illustration hanging without a full explanation.  For me, this includes making sure all my points have specific examples and the transitions of my paper let the reader know exactly where I am going next.

Revised Conclusion

Photosteve. "Crushed Paper" 12/14/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Scratch it and start over... again."  This time however, my new conclusion is better than my old conclusion in every way.  The new one answers the question of "so what?" and brings the topic of rhetoric into a larger problem.  It also keeps in touch with the audience of my paper as it shows not only why analyzing rhetoric is important, but why it is important to engineers.

Old Conclusion

While the author’s use of rhetoric captures the reader and makes them inclined to hear him out, the strategies simultaneously send mixed messages that leave the audience questioning his credibility.  This confusion presents an interesting situation when reader reaches the final paragraphs of the article.  Levermann focuses his entire argument on fighting the popular idea of climate engineering, yet, he concludes his work with a single paragraph on his own solution to climate change.  The assertion is introduced with an insult, “if we don’t want to screw up our climate…”  The slander has no specific target, leaving the reader to think it is possibly them.  Why has the author been so friendly throughout his article and now is suddenly threatening?  The answer may lie in the concept of the jurors.  With so many voices, a passive-aggressive statement will get overlooked.  Unfortunately, the author takes a devastating turn in his rhetorical strategy when he believes he must make his final claim aggressive.  However, just like in a jury room, this technique caused some to concede and others to refuse Levermann’s claim.

New Conclusion

Whether Anders Levermann needed to manipulate his audience into siding with him or he just needed to make his voice heard, his rhetorical strategies send mixed messages to his audience, making his readers question his credibility.  And yet, the argument that Levermann is trying to make a dent in is so large that his voice is just one among millions.  This author is not the only scientist trying to sway the public through emotional words and inflated personas.  To shift through the thousands of news speeches blogs to find non-manipulative arguments would be unrewarding and a waste of time.  To carefully pick through every article for how the author uses rhetorical strategies to persuade readers would be tedious and impossible.  So among these voices do we simply learn to trust no one?  Not at all, but understanding how speakers, even those among the science community, use language to inflate their argument is key to becoming an informed engineer.

Revised Introduction

Photosteve. "Crumpled Paper" 12/15/2010 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

"Scratch it and start over."  As hard as it was, I let go of my first draft of my introduction and wrote a brand new one.  The assignment was to write a totally new introduction that was better than our first in every way.  However, after finishing my second draft of my introduction, I realized something different.

My new introduction better captures the idea of forecasting the direction of my paper.  I clearly show that I will exemplify how rhetoric is important by analyzing a public argument for rhetorical strategies.  This point is lacking in my old introduction; but even still, my old introduction contains a well written metaphor that received praise from my peers.  Finding a combination of the two introductions will produce a truly effective start to my paper.

Old Introduction

Twelve jurors sit in a room.  They talk, they argue, they yell, all in the hope of having a dozen votes flip over the same verdict.  Some become aggressive, some resort to insults, and some go almost unnoticed as their quiet voices can never reach over the boasts of others.  Now imagine these twelve jurors being a thousand scientists, a hundred politicians, and a billion citizens all trying to reach one unanimous decision.  Such is the global issue of how to deal with climate change.  For almost 20 years, the public has argued the issue of global warming, its existence, its causes, its solutions, and its long term effects.  Politicians make impressive promises, scientists boast compelling claims, and the general population is forced to take sides.  But with so many voices, how does one make sure their opinion is heard?  If we look back to the jury room, those that lead the debates and those that never get their opinion heard are separated by one idea: rhetoric.  In the heated controversy, scientists and politicians cannot simply outline their concerns for climate change.  They are driven to make their claims with passionate conviction accompanied by insults that attack their opponent's argument.   Their ability to control the reader through their command of language plays a deciding factor in whether or not their voice will be heard, and more importantly whether it will be impactful.  Anders Levermann faced the same challenge in writing his article Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work.  To make sure people heed his message, he continually belittles the counterargument in an unsuccessful attempt to make the decision of accepting his opinion easy.  He balances this aggressive approach by accommodating an audience that has little knowledge in the field of engineering, and thus creates a persona that is both friendly and knowledgeable.

New Introduction

A cheerleader’s melodramatic breakdown, a jock’s harsh insults, a nerd’s defense of excessive facts, all are forms of rhetoric.  Even more, these same tactics are used by esteemed engineers in the professional world of science.  If you see scientific arguments as a battle of the most impressive facts, you are missing a large part of how engineers make arguments.  Just like everybody else, these scientists make use of sob stories, childish put-downs, and over-inflated facts to make the public heed their argument.  Anders Levermann implements some of these same strategies in his article “Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work.”  The scientist tackles debating a global argument that has been raging for many years.  With a simple list of bulleted facts, Levermann would be quickly overlooked among the numerous voices screaming for attention on the topic of climate change.  However, if we take a look at Levermann’s argument, it is clear that just because he uses rhetorical strategies to make sure he is heard does not mean these tactics will make his message more believable.  Levermann continually belittles the counterargument in an unsuccessful attempt to make the decision of accepting his opinion easy.  He balances this aggressive approach by accommodating an audience that has little knowledge in the field of engineering, and thus creates a persona that is both friendly and knowledgeable.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

Does a movie critic ever get critiqued?  It’s exciting to be the critic, as I got to experience while peer reviewing Jovanka’s draft and Zayla’s draft of Project 2.  Unfortunately, it’s not as thrilling to be critiqued, but let’s take a look at the “movie review” for my draft of the rhetorical analysis.

Manske, Magnus. "Chicago Theatre Sign" 02/04/2009 via Wikimedia. 
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported Licence.

My thesis is easily identifiable and points to specifics in the author’s rhetoric.  The one area I can improve on in my thesis is making sure it completely encompasses my essay’s argument.  These additions could be including the author’s purpose or how the author uses word choice.  However, my thesis has a good balance of broadness and specificity that I do not want to disturb.

My paper has a strong overall organization with guiding topic sentences.  My main improvement will be the organization within the paragraph itself.  My points of analysis are all present, but my peers sometimes had read a paragraph twice to get the full meaning.  By rearranging some of the sentence structures, I can better guide my readers to reach the same conclusions as me.

One of the strengths of my paper lied in deeper insight into the author’s rhetoric.  My paper ties the different strategies together by relating them to how they affect the author’s credibility.  However, my area of improvement will be the overall effect each piece creates.  I have to work on clearly stating what was effective, what wasn’t, and how two different strategies worked together (or didn’t).  There was confusion on whether two of the points I was making contradicted each other; thus, I need to explain how the strategies do oppose but do not contradict.

Another improvement point in my paper is to add more explanation.  Although some of my paragraphs do this effectively, other paragraphs are lacking.  This is an easier fix, as the analysis is there, I just need to make sure my reader understands how I reached these conclusions.  Including quotes seemed to be an effective way of making sure I was pinpointing specific examples.

My conclusion is the weakest point of my paper.  It lacked direction and purpose right from the start and only became more confusing from there.  I need to review the rubric and choose a specific purpose for my conclusion that I think would be most effective for my audience.  Once I have this direction, my conclusion will leave the reader with food for thought.

Punctuation: Part 1

The guidelines for punctuation are like the Terms and Conditions paper.  Everybody knows about it, and for the most part we all have a pretty decent understanding of what it says and how to follow it.  However, very few people want to sit down and nitpick through every little detail of what it all it says so we quickly press the “Agree” button and move on with our lives.  Well today I look at the details of how to use commas, semicolons, and colons laid out in the “Terms and Conditions.”

Zipnon. "Punctuation" 5/20/2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain.

Unnecessary Commas

Commas have to be used according to convention, not necessarily where you think there needs to be a pause.  Thus is the case when combining clauses that are not independent clauses.  Just because a pause sounds nice before the coordinating conjunction, a comma does not belong.

In addition, commas should not be used when the change the meaning of the sentence or take away the importance of a clause.  Often modifiers are essential to the message of the sentence and cannot be hidden away with commas.

The Semicolon

A semicolon has three main places: replacing a coordinating conjunction, preceding a transitional expression, and indicating the relative weight of a pause if a comma is already in the sentence.  In some cases, semicolons can be used to added emphasis to a pause when the distinction between clauses is great.

The Colon

A colon has standard conventions such as when writing time or indicating a ratio.  It also sets apart lists, quotations, and summaries.  However, all these must be preceded by independent clauses.


Reflection:

After reading my peers' drafts, I realized how much we take punctuation for granted.  When I write my draft, I know the intention of the sentence and the right inflection and the correct understanding.  However, this is easily lost when the punctuation is incorrect.

In Zayla's draft, she wrote, "In a successful effort  to minimize the effectiveness of the sanctions and inform her audience of the misconceptions about the economy ; the author evokes sympathy and disapproval within her readers through the use of dreary tone, thought provoking narratives, and interviews from the citizens involved."  The semicolon indicates a large break or pause in the sentence, which disrupts the flow and understanding.

In Jovanka's draft, she wrote, "Rhetorically it makes a lot of sense when you think about what kind of message he wanted to get across; he wanted his readers to come up with their own opinion and have their own thoughts."  Although the sentence seems to read correctly, the use of a colon would help the reader understand that she is introducing an explanation.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Here is the link to my rhetorical analysis.  I think I need to establish more about the context of the article early in my paper.  So that you are clear when you read my analysis, Crutzen is a scientist who proposed a solution to climate change using climate engineering.  The article I analyzed focuses on disproving this solution to climate change.

Lloyd. "Homework" 10/22/2011 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

As you read through please consider the following:

• Is the intro effective?  Do I assume the reader already knows a lot about the climate change debate?
• Is the metaphor in the intro effective?  Should it be referenced in the body of the paper?
• Is it okay that I never address my audience of students specifically?
• Is my analysis too broad?  Do I need to have less breadth and more depth?

Practicing Summary and Parphrase

Sometimes helping the reader understand a large concept in a few words is important, and sometimes capturing all the little nuances of an idea are just as important.  Using a quote from Why Climate Engineering Won't Work, I practice both. 

My Quote from the Original Source

“If we don't want to screw up our climate, it is time to put the fruitless debates on climate-engineering techniques to rest, and focus on the only real solution, which is a tremendous challenge requiring all our intellectual resources: The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.”  (Original Source)

Vectors. "Fountain Pen" via Pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

My Paraphrase of the Original Source

Levermann believes that the solution proposed by Crutzen does not even deserve to be considered as a viable option for reversing global warming.  He argues that if society would like to avoid damaging the earth, the only fix is to remove the poisonous gases from the air, a difficult task that calls for total collaboration (Levermann).

My Summary of the Original Source

Levermann believes that, unlike trying to engineer the weather, the only fix to global warming is eliminating the sources of poisonous gases in the atmosphere.

Project 2 Outline

Helsinki. "Crime Scene" 06/17/2007 via
Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

I was thinking back to my first posts about my writing process.  I remember writing how I was not very fond of the planning process but would rather just write.  Yet, as I force myself to follow the prewriting procedures, I find myself less stressed about the perfection of the paper, and appreciate the ideas I have scattered on the page.

The reading reminded me to include the history and background of the argument.  This is key to my paper since the argument in discussion has been going on for many years but the debates now are different from when they first started.  The texts explains what it means to “respond analytically” (Minnix 122).  This is the main argument of my paper, since I am discussing the contrasting feelings that is creating by the ethos.  My body paragraphs were centered around the text’s idea that the points should yield further discussion.  When bulleting, I had to make sure that the point could be expanded upon.  In my conclusion, “the implications of the analysis” (125) are so important, since the author ends in an unusual way by stating his own opinion after spending the entire paper debating someone else’s opinion.  This idea will be crucial in leaving the reader with food for thought.

I. Introduction
a. Touch on context and background of argument
i. argument’s evolution
b. Introduce Levermann’s overall purpose

II. Thesis
a. Anders Levermann addresses an audience that has little knowledge in the field of engineering so that he can come across as an expert.  He continually belittles the argument in an unsuccessful attempt to make the decision of accepting his opinion easy.
b. Include the contextual values of the argument (e.g. heavy topic, never-ending debate)
c. Focus on the image or persona the author tries to create

III. Body
a. First Paragraph
i. How scientific talk establishes questionable expertise or authority (credibility)
ii. Gives scientific explanation that would be difficult for the common reader to understand
iii. Phrases such as “polar amplification”
iv. Leverman has authority, leaving the audience to question his motivation

b. Second Paragraph
i. How word choice and tone establish a connection to the reader (credibility)
ii. The friendliness and informality contradict stereotypical science journals
iii. Phrases such as “If we don’t want to screw up our climate…”
iv. How this builds trust and makes the audience care (pathos)

c. Third Paragraph
i. How word choice describing the counter arguments creates false assurance in the author’s argument (credibility)
ii. The word “simple” says that the argument is black and white
iii. “The reason is as simple as fundamental…”
iv. Gives the reader an oversimplified view which hurts credibility

IV. Conclusion
a. Strategies are mostly effective but send mixed messages
b. How these strategies affect his solution offered at the end
c. How his argument connects to the ongoing discussion about climate change that no one can agree on

Reflection:

My peer's outlines (those of Jon Wirtzfeld and Olivia Wann) showed me that specificity really helps make a solid base for your paper.  Even if the ideas are not perfect, you know that you at least have enough points and information to carry out your thesis for four to five pages.  By being vague, you may think you have a direction for your paper but quickly find yourself struggling to make your points cohesive with the thesis.  Before I start my draft, I may want to consider my paragraphs to make sure there is enough argument to have an in-depth analysis.

Draft Thesis Statements

Morrison, J. "Easter Road" 08/25/2010 via Wikimedia. 
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic License.

Just like every Dora the Explorer episode started with a look at the map, so every essay must start
with a thesis statement.  Just as the map gave Dora directions to Benny’s barn, so a thesis statement will be the road map through the essay.  Here are a couple of my attempts.

1) Anders Levermann addresses an audience that has little knowledge in the field of engineering so that he can come across as an expert.  He continually belittles the argument in an unsuccessful attempt to make the decision of accepting his opinion easy.

2) Anders Levermann focuses his argument on the fallacies of someone else’s argument.  This factual approach builds his credibility and allows him to share his own opinion at the end without seeming pushy or threatening.

3) Since climate change has been such a heavy topic for many years now, Levermann attempts to connect with his audience by taking a friendly approach to his writing.  Levermann can now successfully discredit Crutzen’s idea without sounding forceful and allowing to express his own thoughts at the end.

These theses definitely touch on the main strategies of Levermann’s argument.  However, I still need to work on creating a comprehensive thesis that effectively integrates purpose of the article along with the strategies.  It will be easy to work from these theses since they all point to multiple but specific points of analysis for the text.  However, incorporating other strategies and contexts into the paper and relating them back to the thesis will be the difficult part.  I will have to make sure the thesis leaves a little room for other opportunities.

Reflection:

After examining other's blog posts on drafting thesis, I realized that without a well-developed thesis, the paper will lack thorough analysis.  When I read the other thesis drafts, I felt that my theses had more ideas that could be developed throughout a paper.  Even still, I found that my drafts need to be more arguable, so that I have plenty of ideas to backup in the body of my essay.

Michaela Webb's theses seemed to be well-developed, focusing on both the strategies used and the effects induced.  This made for a very intriguing intro but also seemed limiting to what she could talk about later on.  This showed me that I could use some more opinion in my thesis, but still keeping it open enough to discuss and argue.

Austin See's thesis drafts came across as too much summary and not enough arguable statements.  Although strategies were included, it would be difficult to continue a paper on from here for four pages.  A thesis for a rhetorical analysis should open up a discussion in which you introduce the reader to your opinions and then in the body you have room to analyze and support your claims.

I found that the same rhetorical analysis can really take on many different viewpoints and arguments that could all be supported.  The main goal is to make sure the argument is focused and is related to the outside factors of the article.

Analyzing My Audience

Shakespeare often wrote “inside jokes” into his works that played to the lower class and peasants.  Shakespeare knew his audience and who he was writing to entertain.  In the same way, I need to be conscious of my audience and know exactly what they need.

I am writing for new students to the engineering college.  It is a safe assumption that all of the students have heard of global warming and some of the options that have been presented as a solution to problem.  This infers that they already have an opinion of their own as to how climate change needs to be dealt with.  Most will probably agree that something must be done, and given that they are engineering students, they probably have an interest in what engineers are doing to find a solution.

My audience may assume that engineers only use facts and figures to make claims.  I will need to delve into how scientists can also make emotional appeals and even put the facts into a biased view.  It will be important to have a very comprehensive outlook of the rhetorical strategies.

Prosperoproducciones. "The audience" 03/02/2013
via Wikipedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

These new engineering students will want to know how to write a rhetorical analysis of an argument made in the engineering field.  They will need to understand how the surroundings of the text are just as important as the content of the text.  This will give an example on how the inner workings of the text add to effectiveness of the author’s argument.

Depending on what the student’s opinion is on climate change, they may agree or disagree with my argument.  My argument will consist of being critical of the author’s rhetorical strategies, and whether I feel the author made a convincing argument, they student may like or dislike my opinion.  However, hopefully the paper shows that no matter what you believe about the topic, you can still evaluate the effectiveness of the author’s rhetoric.

This idea relates to how I will connect to my audience.  I will show that my assumptions on the subject do not affect my argument on the author’s rhetoric.  I will also relate with the audience since we are in the same major as well as analyzing a text that is from the same discipline.  By including my audience in the intro and the conclusion, I will try to convey the importance of knowing how to analyze a public opinionated speech.  This idea will connect the audience to the example of analysis.


Reflection:

I had the opportunity to read through Bailey Mattox's blog post and Hunter McAdams' blog post on their audience.  Hunter took a different approach from me and analyzed the audience of his article.  Although I couldn't relate, I took away some interesting ideas on how to incorporate the role of the audience into my rhetorical analysis.

I could definitely relate to Bailey's post.  I had the same troubles as her thinking that my audience could think/ feel this but they could also feel/ think this as well.  Addressing these points was difficult, but I believe I had well-developed analysis compared to that of my peers.

Although I analyzed my audience well, I saw that they are multiple ways of dealing with the same situations.  Although my evaluation is complete, it is not the only way in which I can view my audience or address them in my paper.  I must keep an open mind of what will best suit my audience in each situation.

Cluster of "Why Climate Engineering Won't Work"

In preparation to write a rhetorical analysis on Why ClimateEngineering Won’t Work, I found it helpful to simply get my thoughts and ideas out there.  I won’t be able to write about everything, so it was important to see what topics (ethos, message, author, etc.) I had the most information to analyze and what topics seemed most essential to the writing.  This will help give direction to my paper.

Zimmermann, Jean Louis. "Smart Goal Setting" 09/19/2008 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Here is my cluster.

Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Why Climate Engineering Won't Work"

Jastrow. "Aristotle Altemps"
11/11/2006 via Wikipedia.
Public Domain License.

“Wit is educated insolence.”  --Aristotle

I included this quote for two purposes: 1) to honor Aristotle who categorized the rhetorical strategies

of ethos, pathos, and logos, and 2) to comment on the way in which the author of my article seems to present himself in regards to the topic.

Ethos

In Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work, Anders Levermann employs a scientific talk that serves to impress the audience.  He explains the science in simple terms, but also uses the engineering language to establish that he has knowledge on the topic and therefore authority to voice his opinion.  The audience is then inclined to believe his message, especially since many of them have little knowledge on the subject themselves and are forced to just accept what the author is saying as fact. 

Levermann uses a condescending tone when speaking of climate engineering, such as “If we don't want to screw up our climate…” and so forth.  This strategy is used to make him sound as though he were above Crutzen and the people working with this engineering, and thus he has the authority to judge whether or not this technique will be effective.  Depending on if the audience feels threatened by this condescending tone, they will either feel more pressure to believe him or think that he is resorting to insults because his facts are not strong enough to support his argument.

Anders Levermann uses his reputation and his expertise to his advantage.  He has over 800 followers on Twitter in which he posts about climate change daily.  The link to his twitter is included at the bottom of the article, as well as a mini bio about himself where information is provided about his job as a professor of Physics in Germany.  All this makes a great claim for Levermann, showing that he has the proper resources and knowledge to speak with authority on this topic.  The audience is led to trust this man that the facts he points out are credible and true.

Throughout the article, Levermann constantly addresses the counterarguments.  He starts by presenting what others believe about climate engineering, and then explains why this idea is flawed.  The body of his writing is structured in this way.  Although this adds to his credibility, it does little for the readers since the majority of them do not have the knowledge to be making counterarguments of their own.

All these strategies help for making an effective argument, as the audience feels that they can fully trust the author, even if he does come across as harsh and insolent.  Levermann is obviously very biased against climate engineering, but his focus on facts seems to draw away from this point.

Pathos

Right from the get-go, Levermann reminds the reader of two popular news items regarding the effects of climate change in the world.  Whether or not people have personal connections to the California drought or the Vanuatu typhoon, the events still remind readers of the heartache and difficulties experienced.  The author has now given the audience a reason to care about the situation at hand, and thus a reason to be invested.

Levermann continuously plays on the word “simple.”  Since this is a scientific problem, the reader believes that the arguments will be confusing or difficult to understand.  Levermann tries to get his reader to believe that the argument is “simple” and that the flaws are “fundamental.”  The audience is led to think that if this problem is so simple, then it shouldn’t be that be that hard to accept what the author is writing.

Although technical, Levermann employs a very informal speech to talk with his readers.  His annoyance and anger towards climate engineering is overt and comes across as very relatable to the audience.  This helps the audience to problem, presenting the issue on a more “human” level rather than the distant, unbiased scientific language that scientists often have to use.  However, his informality also makes him sound like he is complaining and annoyed, which might turn the reader away from what he has to say.

Altogether, these pieces make the message relatable and important to the general public.  On the other hand, the pathos makes the message feel as though it is childish since the author seems annoyed with the almost stupidity of those who desire climate engineering.  In addition, the informality draws away from his credibility since he no longer sounds like a scientist but a regular angered human being.

Logos

Levermann relies on Logos in the body of his text.  He uses facts and statistics that back up why he believes climate engineering is ineffective.  He infers that these statistics are accepted among the physicist community but does not reference or site any other names of professionals.  The author wants the reader to feel that the proof is in the facts and needs no other form of persuasion.  Given that this is a science based article, it is very effective since the audience is coming into the article expecting facts and proof backed by science.

Anders Levermann also puts a lot of thought into the structure of his paper.  The organization allows the reader to grasp the message of the article even if they don’t understand the science behind it.  The sentences use simple language to help the reader follow the logic of the argument.  The author continually states the message of the article that climate engineering is flawed so that the reader doesn’t feel lost in the “science” of it all.  This strategy is once again effective as the reader would quickly give up on the article if they ever felt overwhelmed by argument that was being presented.


Reflection:

After reading Chris Bohlman's post and Stef Antonopoulos' post, I realized that it can be really helpful to include quotes that back up your claims, especially so that in the future you can reference specific parts of your article.  I also noticed that you can take the analysis a step further by telling what the effect would have been if the author did (or didn't do) x, y, or z.

I feel my analysis was very comprehensive and just as developed as my peers.  By answering each of the questions for each of the strategies individually, I included what the effect of the parts were as well as what the effect of the whole was.  I felt that even though my analysis was organized differently than those of my peers, the information was still the same and still thoroughly evaluated the effectiveness of the rhetorical strategies. 

Analyzing Message in "Why Climate Engineering Won't Work"

When I told my roommate the exciting story of how I saw my life flash before my eyes when I tripped over his shoes coming into the dorm room while holding my engineering project that I almost dropped, the message was pretty clear that this was more than just a conversational piece about my day.  However, recognizing an author’s message, and more importantly their purpose, can be a tad more difficult.

Rgovostes. "Mobile Notifier"
05/27/2011 via Wikimedia.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

As Anders Levermann writes Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work, his purpose is direct and clearly stated.  His first goal is to respond to Crutzen’s idea of climate engineering and its popularity among many people.  Secondly, he wants to inform the reader about this topic and show how its potential is actually misunderstood and very flawed.  Finally, he wants to persuade the audience to agree with him that climate engineering is not a realistic solution.

Levermann is not so much upset about the idea proposed by Crutzen as he is about the praise it is receiving.  He believes that many are not seeing the downfalls of the solution and tries desperately to change people’s minds.

The only purpose that Levermann is not focused on is analyzing or interpreting.  He does not feel the need to analyze the reason as to why so many people are drawn to climate engineering.  His argument is concise on the scientific reasons that support his argument and does not believe he needs to focus on what people are “feeling.”

Levermann seems to have an underlying message that almost seems to tell the audience they are ignorant if they think climate engineering will fix all the problems.  He shows no sympathy for Crutzen’s idea and presents the flaws as blatant and obvious.  He uses this to make the audience feel stupid if they believe climate engineering will work.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

It is difficult to be free of opinions on a topic that is as highly debated as climate change is.  The opinions fly between political parties, scientists, and the general public.  Understanding my own assumptions on the subject will help me evaluate other’s opinions with clarity.

Wade M. "Thinking" 08/30/2008 via Flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

I have only heard about climate engineering from people who believe that it will not work.  I do not have the knowledge to make my own decision as to the best way to solve climate change, and therefore I have to depend on what others say.  The article makes a presumption that the readers accept that climate change is a serious man-made problem that needs immediate attention.  While I may agree with this, I have to see how not everyone reading this article would go in with that presumption.

I do not believe that there is no value in climate engineering and that we should just throw this idea away.  Even if there are flaws, they should be worked through.  My disagreement for his total abandonment of climate engineering will have to be taken into effect when I evaluate this article.

The U.S. is also a place of high energy consumption (i.e. factories, cars. etc.).  It is easy to relate to the author’s belief that doing something to fix the problem is imperative.  However, since I am not from the science community, I cannot relate to the contempt shown for the aerosol particle solution. 


Reflection:

Both agreeing with the author and disagreeing with the author can both lead to bias that can affect how you analyze the writer's rhetoric.  Joy Kosik's post discussed how she agreed with the author which makes it easier to read multiple times and break down, but can also lead to missing some of the incorrect assumptions and unfair emotional appeals that the author might make.

Just being completely honest with yourself on what you feel about a certain topic can be incredibly helpful.  Gabee Mazza's blog post reminded me that trying to pretend you weren't biased toward the subject would be actually harmful.  Instead of trying to cover up your bias, you are better off getting it out there in the open so that you can truly see how this might affect your analysis of the author's rhetoric devices.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

Climate change is a global issue, yet some areas are experiencing the causes and effects on a closer level.  In addition, the issue is rapidly changing as scientists are uncovering new information about the causes, effects, and solutions of the climate change.  In writing Why Climate Change Won’t Work, Anders Levermann was greatly influenced by the cultural context of the time.

Skippan. "Aircraft contrails" 12/12/2008
via Wikimedia. Public Domain License.

Scientists have been in a mad rush to solve this climate crisis. One of these scientists is Paul Crutzen who won the Nobel Peace Prize for presenting the idea of shooting aerosol particles into the air that would reflect more of the sunlight back into the earth’s atmosphere.  The article by Anders Levermann is written in response to the great praise that this solution has been getting from other scientists and politicians.

Paul Crutzen’s solution is one example how many believe that the problem of climate of change can be fixed through climate engineering, a man-made solution.  Levermann directly addresses this cultural belief and criticizes Crutzen’s idea throughout the article while attempting to point out of its flaws.  This is further shown when his proposed solution is to decrease our use of fossil-fuels, an idea that tries to take humans out of climate interference.

Levermann wrote his article from Berlin, Germany in April of 2015.  This was about seven years after Crutzen proposed his idea to the community, giving scientists ample time to test and evaluate this solution and its effectiveness.  Given that Berlin is a highly populated city, Levermann has probably seen firsthand the causes of the climate change.

Cultural Analysis of "Why Climate Engineering Won’t Work"

“Global warming”—a phrase that carries a lot of weight for anyone who hears it.  With every article written and every speech made, feelings and opinions aroused by the topic grow stronger, whether they are passionate concern, extreme apathy, or simply annoyance.  When reading these texts, it is important to understand the cultural circumstances surrounding the author’s argument.

In Why ClimateEngineering Won’t Work, Anders Levermann brings up a topic that has been heavily debated for many years.  The arguments either lie in questioning if man-made climate change is real or in debating how the problem might be solved.  Levermann lays out in his article very clearly that climate engineering will not be able to reduce climate change.

Throughout the writing, Levermann tugs at three cultural ideas and values that help make the article seem of high importance.  He often reminds the reader how climate change is a “global” problem;

Gaddi, Heidi. "The effects of global warming" 04/18/2007
via Deviant Art. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

and although this may seem basic since it is referred to as “global warming,” he uses it to magnify the severity of the problem.  This strengthens his argument that one simple engineering trick will not fix the problem.

The author often mentions the “effects” of climate change.  By using this word, he implies that there was a cause to the problem, and in this case, man’s use of fossil-fuel.  Levermann wants to remind the reader of the cultural value that climate change is a man-made problem and therefore cannot be resolved by another man-made artificial solution.

This brings us to the last cultural word, “reverse.”  The culture believes in reversing the effects of climate change but does not want to reverse the cause of the problem.  Levermann argues that solving the problem can in no way be a quick fix.

The references to cultural values help to both strengthen the beliefs of the readers as well as get them to take their thinking a step further into what Levermann wants them to believe.