My Rhetorical Action Plan

This post will outline the important information I will need to keep track of while structuring my eventual public argument. (in the form of answers to a bunch of bulleted questions.) In essence, this is my plan of attack on project 3.

'Worldslandinfo.com.' "Planning session" 12/9/2006 via flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Audience:

   Knowledge: what does the audience know about the topic? How do they know the topic? Do they have certain dispositions that you will need to address?

The audience probably doesn't know all of the various ways space exploration benefits humanity (beyond just "oh, look, we've landed on another planet, cool"), or how little (relatively) it costs taxpayers. The main way the audience probably knows about this topic is from the media, which is true of most people (this is why they probably wont have a deep understanding of the whole situation; most people don't go out and research things they don't immediately support). A possible bias I'd like to address is that they will think that space exploration is not very beneficial to humanity.

   Values: what do you know about the values, ideals, principles, or norms that members of the audience might hold?

The main thing is that members of the audience will value very highly helping those in need. So they will support spending on humanitarian aid, and other for-the-people kind of projects above space exploration.

   Standards of argument:what type of research or evidence do you think will be persuasive for your audience? How might you have to translate this research for them?

Logical arguments are always persuasive, so I'd like to include as many of those as possible. However, because the reason I think the audience is currently unsupportive of space exploration is primarily reliant on pathos, I really want to try to include a pathetic argument for space exploration to counteract it. Or I could at least put the logical appeals into more pathos-oriented terms.

    Visual elements: what visual images or elements might your audience respond to? why?

Because my argument will have primarily logical appeals, graphs would go nicely with them.

   Purpose: why is your audience reading your argument? 

Firstly, because my title is going to be extremely clickbait-y. But really, I want them to see why I think despite whatever values they hold, space exploration is still  worthy cause. I'm not sure how likely the audience will be to agree with my argument, but hopefully, as I'm trying to bring something new, I'll mention something they never thought of before, which will convince them.

Genre (an Op-Ed, for now, or maybe a column):

Here are examples of Op-Ed's: From LA Times, about religion and from the New York Times, about Isreal. 

Here are examples of columns: From the AZ daily star, about Pima hall of fame and from NY Times about Heart disease.

   What is the function of the genre/ why did you choose it?

The function of an Op-Ed is to share an opinion, or make a convincing argument within a relatively short piece of writing. (usually shorter than 750 words). A column is similar, but can have a stronger opinion, as the writer usually has ethos covered for them.

   What is the setting of your genre? where could you see it being used?

In a magazine or newspaper "opposite the editorials" (Op-Ed). Or in the columns section of a periodical.

   How might you use the Rhetorical appeals we have studied?

I will likely prioritize logos, then ethos, then pathos, unless I can come up with a strong Pathetic argument, which would be very useful.

   What type of visual elements will you use in this genre?

Typically, visual elements were not accepted in Op-Ed pieces, but they are stating to be more accepted,like in the NYT example, in which case I would use graphs to illustrate my logical points. In columns, they don't seem to be as prevalent, so I'd have to think wisely about maybe a single one.

   What kind of style will you use in this genre?

Semi-formal,and a bit academic, but too strictly that it seems too awkward. But I definitely don't want to send something out to potentially hundreds of thousands of people that reads as if I know them all.

Positive Reactions:

1. support for space exploration increases.

2. support for space exploration increases enough that people petition or vote for more of it.

3. support for space exploration increases enough that people start donating and contributing to private space exploration companies.

Negative Rebuttals:

1. "but still, even if space exploration is the greatest thing ever, what are we supposed to do about all the problems on earth?" -> surely there are other ways to fund Environmental/ humanitarian aid projects than to cut NASA's budget.

2. "How can you just ignore all of those poor starving people who could stay alive with less than a millionth of what we send into space?" -> well, It's not that I'm ignoring the, so much as space exploration doesn't have much to do with them, and isn't the thing to cut to make way for them.

3. "But aren't you extremely biased, as a space-enthusiast, and aerospace engineer-in-training?" -> well, yeah, but if an argument is logically sound, bias doesn't matter. Good reasons are still good no matter the source. It may affect ethos, but logos is ultimately the thing of most importance in an argument.