Analyzing Purpose

This post will further breakdown the bigger picture of the argument. Unlike the previous post, however, I will be thinking through the purpose of my public argument. In the rest of this post, you will see an elaborate Coggle construction that I have made to follow the directions from Writing Public Lives page 326.

Paul Downey. "Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose. The 3 key factors of intrinsic motivation according to Dan Pink."
11/30/2013 via Wikimedia.org. Public Domain Dedication.

Key Areas Highlighted Are:

1. Determine the goal of the public argument.

The main goal of my public argument will be addressing the issue of geoengineering as a whole. While the field of geoengineering is very large, I will be using the methods employed to support the uses conducted. Previous articles that I have researched into and wrote about have mainly been about the processes of fracking and solar radiation management. In my argument, I want to bring up additional methods that would provide relief to opposers and would give them a sense of hope for a environmental and technological future.

2. What do you want readers to do, feel, and/or believe?

I want my readers to realize that the processes of geoengineering are not bad. Even though many say that certain methods are bad for the environment, scientific proof thus far has not banned their uses. The method employed that has generated the most debate is fracking. I want my readers to view these methods as a gateway to a better future. I want supporters of the methods to advocate for them. I want opposers to realize that their views are biased based off of others' opinions.

3. Highlight "Plausible Actions / Reactions." Similarly, highlight "Not Plausible."

Plausible: 

• A reader may consider the benefits of geoengineering and become fond of them.
• A reader may want to search for more research done in the field.
• A reader may find my argument absurd and call me unreliable.
• A reader may completely ignore my argument.

Not Plausible:

• A reader may become deranged and commit an action that is unspeakable.
• A reader may entirely accept or deny the facts and opinions I have presented.
• A reader, if mentally stable, may automatically lean one way or the other after reading.

4. Build a chain of likely consequences for the argument.

My argument could spark another worldwide debate. If I were to present the public of additional ideas and projects that scientists and their companies want to conduct, then a newly escalated issue would incur. My statements and opinions may become labeled as unreliable and incredible by reputable persons who oppose the use of geoengineering. It may even be possible that my argument could be rejected by well respected supporters as well.

5. Think of possible audiences to address.

My audience would be mainly proportional of supporters of geoengineering and its methods. These people would make up a very large majority while people who are neutral and the subject may be another significant portion. Lastly, I would not include many opposers to engineering in my argument, but I would want to aim the focus towards them specifically. This in turn would call out the flaws in their arguments and would persuade them to think again on the effects of geoengineering. If I get lucky, they will consider the methods as plausible subjects being tested upon.