My Rhetorical Action Plan

Now that I have analyzed both the context and purpose in my two previous posts, I can now start to decide on a rhetorical action plan. The development of one takes some time and this post will help break it down into a more manageable and clear analysis before delving deeper into the actual public argument later on.

geralt. "Town Sign Plan Success Strategy Business." 04/21/2005 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

Developing a Rhetorical Action Plan


Audience: Who are you trying to persuade? Describe the following aspects of you audience:

• Knowledge: My audience has a general idea of what the topic is. They get their information from media outlets covering the debates and experimental studies done on the effects of the methods used. Many most likely have predispositions on the subject. These views are mainly of positive or negative opinions of geoengineering itself.

• Values: My audience's values are held tight and they intend to keep it that way. Many want to know what geoengineering actually is, whether it be beneficial or harmful. The audience most likely believes that they have a right to know what the methods are doing to the plant's atmosphere, earth or water. 

• Standards of Argument: The type of research that would persuade my audience is the proof and hard evidence that a method does in fact benefit or harm the environment and other living things. If these were presented in large quantities to the public, then the debate would be nearly over. People always want the answers and the truths about what is happening.

• Visual Elements: My audience would respond to visuals such as charts, graphs, and other statistical information regarding the field of geoengineering. They want to physically see the numbers to make a presumption on the effects on the planet.

• Purpose: My audience wants another perspective other than the ones that I have researched into before. My argument will go down a different path to show readers additional methods used in geoengineering and how they are beneficial to mankind and the environment. 

Genre: What form of writing will you use? Answer the following:

1. What is the function of the genre?  I will be writing an argumentative piece on why geoengineering is truly beneficial to the planet and its inhabitants. I will also state reasons why the methods employed are not harmful or risky. This will all be backed up with expert statements as well as statistical evidence.

2. What is the setting of your genre? The setting for my article will be similar to those posted in media outlets such as The Washington Post or The New York Times. I could also see my piece being published in scientific journals.

3. How might you use the rhetorical appeals -- ethos, pathos, and logos?  I will present information based on the appeals of logos and ethos. I will not use pathos as my audience would not be emotionally moved by the statistics and data I will display. The use of logos will be of most importance as a topic such a geoengineering needs solids evidence to persuade a reader to understand and follow.

4. What type of visual elements will you use in this genre? I may or may not display graphs and / or charts in my writings. If I do however, they will help aid in my argument that geoengineering methods are efficient for the planet and safe to use on a large scale.

5. What type of style will you use in this genre? I will use a formal style of writing with the means of informing my audience about the issue I will present. I want my readers to fully understand why geoengineering is beneficial to the planet and why it is not harmful in any severe way.

Responses / Actions: Explain possible actions you would like your audience to take:

• List potential "Positive Support" and "Negative Rebuttals" to the argument.

• Positive:
• My audience will find my argument agreeable
• Readers will begin to advocate for the use of geoengineering
• Readers will want to learn more about the positive effects of geoengineering
• Negative:
• My audience will strongly disagree with my argument
• Readers will begin to label me as an author as not credible
• Readers will label my argument as ineffective

• Which negative rebuttals do you think should be better addressed? The main potential rebuttal that should be addressed is if the audience should label myself as an unreliable source. To combat this, I should use solid evidence found through extensive research. Using this information should reenforce my argument. If a reader wants to call me unreliable, then he may as well be calling the data and statistics unreliable as well when they were conducted by very reliable sources.

• Trace out the potential chains of action that the argument might create. If my argument is effective, then readers will begin to advocate the use of geoengineering to solve the planet's environmental issues. If readers strongly dislike my argument, then another controversy might ensue from my statements.