Publishing Public Argument

In this post I will answer several questions with regards to my recently published Project 3 public argument. I will provide information about my audience's stand on the issue and how they should feel after reading my article. I will also discuss the appeals of ethos, pathos and logos in my article very briefly.

Zappys Technology Solutions. "Newton's-Third-Law-Discussion-Questions."
10/14/2014 via Flickr. Public Domain Decdication.

1. Where do you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue before your argument?

Depending on my audience's pervious view on the issue, I can guess that their standing would be of either of slight disagreement or of slight agreement. I would not expect my audience to hold any strong or intense views until after reading my argument or anyone else's that would seem to convey similar messages as mine.


2. Where do you feel your target audience currently stands on the issue after your argument?

I feel my audience would strongly agree with my views, statements, and opinions after reading my public argument. I feel confident that I would have convinced my readers that geoengineering is negatively impacting our planet and the human race. However, if someone does not agree, I would expect them to stand strongly in discontent with my argument. Either way, the resulting views will be of strong agreement or of strong disagreement.


3. What kind of argument type is your public argument?

My argument is a refutation to solutions presented and currently being practiced for the problem of environmental issues. The main issue of what these "solutions" serve to solve is the problem of global warming. My argument states the wrongs of what these methods have on the environment and what they will have on people and life on Earth if they continue to be used.


4. Explain how your argument provides original context and insight.

Although I use much data and statistics presented by other sources throughout my argument, I am able to present a new state of mind to people concerned over the methods people are using to combat global environmental issues. I have presented different points, although talked about before, that help guide readers down the path that will serve them good in the end once they learn the truth behind geoengineering.


5. Identify the specific rhetorical appeals you believe you've employed in your public argument.

From the ethical and credible side of the appeals employed: I referenced credible sources, I used carefully chosen key words and phrases that demonstrate my credibility, I arranged visual elements properly, and I openly acknowledged counterarguments and refuted them intelligently.

For emotional appeals, I chose to keep the feelings of my audience uninvolved as much as possible. I chose the use of data and statistics to merely evoke shock value from my readers to get them to see the larger picture of the harm that geoengineering is causing.

The third appeal relates to the logical and rational side of my argument. I chose to employ the following appeals: use of statistics from credible sources, use of expert opinions that help affirm my stance, use of effective organization, sequence of images/text to make my arguments linear, intentional emphasis on specific topics to strengthen my argument, and the use of clear transitions between different sections of my argument.


6. Provide working hyperlinks to examples of the genre you've chosen to write in.

These sources are all derived from The Atlantic.
a. Free Speech Isn't Free
b. Islamophobia Is Not a Myth
c. The Boyfriend Myth