Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in Geoengineering

Continuing the analysis of geoengineering using the article from The Washington Post's Brad Plumer, "Should we use geoengineering to cool the Earth? An interview with David Keith," the following sections will tell in detail the different appeals that the text holds.

U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Grace Lee. "A gavel sits in the Luke Air Force Base courtroom."
02/19/2013 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

APPEALS TO CREDIBILITY OR CHARACTER

Which items on the bulleted list can you recognize?
From the bulleted list, I can identify the use of certain word choice, the tone of the text, the information about the author's expertise, an acknowledgement of counterarguments, and several appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience.

How and why would the author use these strategies?
The author aims to inform readers simply of the argument behind geoengineering. He interviews climate scientist David Keith to get the facts behind the supporting frontline. It seems he does not want to evoke a biased article, but to merely question the thoughts of a supporter of geoengineering.

How do these strategies affect the audience's perception of the author's credibility and character?
The audience's perception depends on their original views on the topic. If a reader previously supported geoengineering then he would find this article interesting and encouraging, but for a reader who opposes the methods, he would not feel the same way. The author's credibility does not seem to be of either direction. He presents himself as a mediator between the interviewee and the audience.

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text's overall message?
The effectiveness does not seem to sway in any certain direction. The use of these strategies simply aim to get a point across to readers to better understand the context of the article.

Does the author seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?
The author does not have any assumptions that would impact their credibility. His biases might include just he singularity that he decided on interviewing an advocate of geoengineering rather than an unbiased source of the same information.


APPEALS TO EMOTION

Which items on the bulleted list can you recognize?
Some points that I can see in this article are the repetition of key words, a level of formality, and the ton of voice. The author and interviewee use words most associated with geoengineering. The use of "solar engineering" and "global warming" are presented often in the text. The level of formality is of a formal essence. No total bias nor total advocacy. The tone of voice used by the author and interviewee are not of much emotion, but more informative.

What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?
The author does not attempt to create any emotional response to his writings. He simply aims to inform readers of the topic and how it is impacting the environment for the good and for the bad, depending on the views of the audience.

What is the actual result?
The author might come off as biased, choosing to interview a support of geoengineering. Although he asks broad questions that seem to be of neutral context, readers may find this frustrating and annoying.

Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?
These emotions are effective for this audience. The text provokes a kind of emotion that might irritate a reader because of the stance of the interviewee, but it can also bring out an interest in others to learn more and how it can possibly help the planet.

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author or the logic of the text?
These emotions may affect the credibility of the author in a mainly negative manner. The fact that he chose to interview a biased individual effects his credibility in the eyes of the population that does not agree with the views of the individual.


APPEALS TO LOGIC

Which items on the bulleted list can you recognize?
The point that obviously stands out the most is the use of an interview or an expert opinion. Another point being used in this article is the effective organization of sentences, paragraphs, and ideas. The text revolves around an interview so it is easy to see why that would be a convention used. The use of questions to ask the interviewee helps highlight the point of effective organization.

What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?
The author attempts to create an organized article covering an interview that is effective for readers to understand. For the most part, his tactics worked in that his questions and answers format had indeed made his article more organized.

What is the actual result?
Although still organized in the eyes of nearly all, again his choice of interviewing a biased individual has tainted his article in a negative manner towards people in opposition. This has impacted his credibility and reliability to an extent of below zero.

Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?
For the most part, his article being organized is effective for this audience in that they are reading into it to try to understand the controversy behind geoengineering and the methods that it employs.



Reflection: Articles vary so widely that it is so easy yet so hard to find ones that are similar. After looking at the article that Kelly found and how she analyzed it, I found that our articles were very similar in format and in conventions. However, our topics were of total difference. As for the article that Morgan found though, I saw that her article was very different from mine. Her article catered an emotional level to readers and included a heart-felt story to get readers involved.