Analyzing Context

In this post, I will be looking at the bigger picture and analyzing the context of my argument. This post will serve as a baseline as to pointing out the major points and key perspectives. I will be answering questions coming from Writing Public Lives page 340; these questions will help get the view of where the argument as a whole stands currently.

F Delventhal. "The Bigger Picture." 12/30/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

The main thought-process on the debate over geoengineering is either of negative or positive opinion. Hard facts have been noted through studies as well as experiments, but these have been conducted with results supporting the act of geoengineering or tainting it. People have been debating the topic over the past several decades and not much has come of it besides newly learned methods and proof that some work and some don't, thus harming the environment if so.

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?

A couple of topics under fire in the field of geoengineering has been the methods of fracking and solar radiation management. Critics and supporters alike have been debating back and forth on both topics stating the positive and negative effects of each with the counter-argumentation just as strong from either side.

3. What are the possible points of agreement, or common ground between these perspectives?

Although there are nearly no common grounds that these two perspectives there are some specific area where the two collaborate on the same points. They both address the effects on the environment, they both also identify that the these effects do make impacts on other subjects related to the environment. They major issue however is that although they both state similar topics, the two have different and opposite results.

4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

The differences are obvious. One side has a view that competes with another side's view. Both cannot come to a consensus and this is why the issue has escalated into a large controversy. The issue that come into play are whether one side is dominant over the other in the views they present .

5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

Either side is fighting to gain followers and support for their causes. Supporters of geoengineering would want their audiences to say that the methods are beneficial and not harmful to the environment. On the other hand, if an opposer to geoengineering were part of an audience, they would act in a way that would be in total offense towards supports.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting you own arguments about the issue? How so?

Since I believe that geoengineering is an efficient and beneficially way to solve the planet's environmental issues, I would argue for its advocacy. Perspectives that point towards geoengineering as a solution would be most useful in my argument, while views that discourage the methods would not. However, if a comment made by an opposer seemed quite absurd, I could use that statement as a display of lacking credibility from the opposing source.

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? How so?

The greatest threat to my argument are solid and hard evidence that proves that methods of geoengineering are harmful to the environment. Luckily, not all methods have been linked to any risks. Although the topics such as fracking and solar radiation management have been under much controversy, they would not be going on if there was enough evidence to prove their harmfulness.


In Reflection, reading over Savannah's post and Alyssa's post, I found that different approaches can be made for any type of argument. Answers to these questions by Savannah followed along very similar lines as mine. This is not surprising as we both are covering engineering based topics. As for Alyssa's topic, I really needed to read into her answers to get the understanding of what her argument will be comprised of. Her statements seem to be a very good starting point for an argument on circumcision.