Revised Introduction

This post will follow along with what I did after I threw my introduction in the trash bin (metaphorically).

Firstly, I got rid of the overly explanatory style I had originally tried. It was just too much information that I ultimately never mentioned again. Next, I tried to make a good hook: I thought, "Hey, Mars One's mission statement is thought-provoking enough on it's own, I'll just use that!" Lastly, I made a deliberate effort to gear the essay toward the fictitious newbies in my field who need my help.

'Mad cherub.' "Trash Bin" 2/28/2007 via wikimediea.
Attribution 1.0 Generic License.

So, I actually had three introductory paragraphs, because I wanted to introduce the entire Rhetorical situation. However, this is not going to cut it. I think I'll have to just mention the relevant parts as they become relevant throughout the essay. I was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off on my first attempt; it was just so watered-down, and empty... I just... I'm sorry:

First things first, Mars One is a dutch organization that got a lot of attention and good publicity after it announced plans to land human colonizers on Mars by 2025, a claim they still hold to, according to their website. There are three main people to be aware of: Elmo Keep, the author of “Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters,” Joseph Roche, a former NASA researcher who applied to the program, and Bas Lansdorp, the CEO of Mars One. In her article, Keep attempts to expose Mars One for what it is to supporters, reporters, and space enthusiasts, primarily through logical and ethical appeals, while ignoring pathetic ones, which is appropriate, considering the field is science and technology oriented. She has support from Roche, who spoke out against the company based on his experience in the selection process, and she has written an article on an interview response with Lansdorp.

The audience for her article is, as a sort of news article, somewhat oriented for the general public. But more specifically, it is geared toward anyone who may have been excited about or supportive of Mars One, because the purpose of the article is to show what the situation really is. She wants to show that what they might be supporting is something that doesn’t really exist. She also mentions her disappointment in the general media for their lack of coverage of the new information and continued praise for Mars One’s original statements. She says, “Most egregiously, many media outlets continue to report that Mars One received applications from 200,000 people who would be happy to die on another planet — when the number it actually received was 2,761” [1]. Because she mentions this, and connotes her disapproval, one can assume that she wants to tell them to change, and start reporting the truth, so the article could also be addressed to those media outlets. In context, this article covers new information about a prominent and exciting program that has come out, which casts a lot of doubt on the feasibility of its success. The general audience would mostly react to this with simple interest. It’s unlikely that too many people would emotionally work up a bias against Keep, so it’s safe for her to assume and write to a level-headed audience.

The author of the article, as already stated, is Elmo Keep, but in a way, because she borrows so much from Roche’s report, he is almost like a second author, at least in the sense that his ideas are expressed throughout the text. While keep doesn’t have so much face-value credibility to her background, Roche does, as a former NASA researcher, and assistant professor. But neither of these backgrounds are ones that one would assume to be biased against a space exploration company. Rather, as space enthusiasts, they would more likely want to support one, so they have the benefit of having at least the appearance of a legitimate purpose, rather than just bashing on a company they don’t like.

Now for the new-and-improved version of my intro:

Mars One is going to send people 140 million miles away, to Mars… One-way… Within one decade from now… Or, as Elmo Keep, the author of “Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How It‘s Ripping Off Supporters,” suggests: it will try, but will probably just fall on its face. She’ll use almost entirely logical and ethical appeals, while she neglects pathos, to convince you of this, too. This is because that’s exactly how a science- or technology- based argument is supposed to be constructed. Keep will do well to make her article convincing, as she implicitly takes in to account both the characteristics of her audience and subject matter of her article itself. After we go through Keep’s example, and deconstruct exactly how she does this, you will be able to recognize the conventions of constructing an argument in this field. This will allow you to spot weak arguments, in addition to being able to construct your own, stronger arguments.