 |
| Children drawing. "Pegasus with large mane" 4/7/2015 via torange Attribution 4.0 International License. |
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Draft of Public Argument
This post serves primarily as a link to my project 3 draft, my public argument on space exploration. It's still a draft, so, you know, it's not that great. But it's an op-ed, so it should be a bit short,and be opinionated, but if it is too short or opinionated, that's not good either. (also, the title could use some help)
Much like this drawing, my draft's got some basic shape, and just needs a good finishing, and it'll be in a museum in no time.
Considering Visual Elements
This post will be about the visual elements might consider including in my op-ed for project 3.
1. Is the theme or association that the image produces relevant to the theme of my argument?
I could definitely include an image that connotes the type of pathos that people think of when they think of Earthly problems. This way I could remind my readers why I'm writing about the disconnect between that and funding for space exploration.
2. Does the graph or chart clearly support a major point of my argument?
If I include a graph, it will probably be one showing the comparisons of national expenditures, which would support the point that NASA doesn't actually spend much, and that there are other programs that could be seen as more frivolous.
3. Is the image in close proximity to the argument that it is emphasizing?
I'll definitely put the images close to the points they illustrate. It only makes sense that they would go there, so the continuity isn't lost between ideas.
4. Do your eyes move easily from one section to another in the order you intended?
I don't think this will be too much of an issue, as it will mostly be a single-column body of text. However, I should make efforts to have the final design clear and flowing.
5. If your project contains large blocks of text, could they be broken up more effectively using text boxes, lines, headings, or images?
This is another thing I shouldn't have to worry about, the op-ed being a fairly short genre. However, I definitely don't want to go overboard, like I felt example 2 from my earlier post did. I just felt that there were too many images, and it looked a bit crowded. This is something I'll make sure to avoid.
6. Are your images placed or sequenced in the most convincing way?
I hadn't thought about the sequence of introducing the images, but I'll keep it in mind. I think introducing the pathos first, before showing it's disconnected, will be a good order. A second pass afterward, though, might be helpful.
 |
| Black, Les. "Boy Testing Eye Site" 4/20/2013 via flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License. |
I could definitely include an image that connotes the type of pathos that people think of when they think of Earthly problems. This way I could remind my readers why I'm writing about the disconnect between that and funding for space exploration.
2. Does the graph or chart clearly support a major point of my argument?
If I include a graph, it will probably be one showing the comparisons of national expenditures, which would support the point that NASA doesn't actually spend much, and that there are other programs that could be seen as more frivolous.
3. Is the image in close proximity to the argument that it is emphasizing?
I'll definitely put the images close to the points they illustrate. It only makes sense that they would go there, so the continuity isn't lost between ideas.
4. Do your eyes move easily from one section to another in the order you intended?
I don't think this will be too much of an issue, as it will mostly be a single-column body of text. However, I should make efforts to have the final design clear and flowing.
5. If your project contains large blocks of text, could they be broken up more effectively using text boxes, lines, headings, or images?
This is another thing I shouldn't have to worry about, the op-ed being a fairly short genre. However, I definitely don't want to go overboard, like I felt example 2 from my earlier post did. I just felt that there were too many images, and it looked a bit crowded. This is something I'll make sure to avoid.
6. Are your images placed or sequenced in the most convincing way?
I hadn't thought about the sequence of introducing the images, but I'll keep it in mind. I think introducing the pathos first, before showing it's disconnected, will be a good order. A second pass afterward, though, might be helpful.
Project 3 Outline
This post will outline the content I'll need to include for project 3.
Introduction:
1. Connect the issue to your audience's world view:
This should be easy, because I'm trying to target people who currently think that the Earth is in too bad of a shape to fund space exploration. I can start off by acknowledging that point, and saying, "yes, it absolutely is, and people need to do stuff about it." But also, I can list off some of the ways space exploration has helped people in the past.
Body:
1. List out the major supporting arguments:
NASA's allowance is under one and a half a percent of the national budget (most people probably think it is a lot more).
There are other government programs, despite the amount of money they receive, that most would argue are more wasteful than NASA (so going after NASA is a bad place to start).
The nature of how the money is spent (off earth, whereas there are problems on earth), while rhetorically appealing (it sounds cool to say "why spend money in space when there are problems on Earth?"), doesn't matter.
2. List down major criticisms:
I honestly can't think of any beyond the emotional appeal of "it doesn't help those in dire need of help."
I guess someone could say that they really don't have any interest in anything beyond Earth, which is a valid opinion.
17 billion dollars a year is a lot of money.
3. Select your key support and rebuttal points.
I'll include all of them. They are all pretty important, and the rebuttal points I have there are all I could think of.
4. Write out a tentative topic sentence for each point:
+
NASA's annual budget is far lower than most people think.
NASA is not the program to cut.
We need to keep in mind what really matters when it comes to spending.
-
Absolutely, there are people in need of help, and money can go a lot of the way in helping.
It's possible that some think space exploration is a waste of time for no other reason than that it doesn't interest them.
NASA costs a lot of money to run.
5. Gather evidence:
Global crises:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-crisis-food-water-and-fuel-three-fundamental-necessities-of-life-in-jeopardy/9191
National budget:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf
6. Map
Conclusion:
4. Common ground:
Definitely common ground, because I absolutely agree that people need to do something about the rampant poverty, hunger, war, etc. that humans face. It's only that I don't think that cutting space exploration is the way to get the money for that.
 |
| 'gfpeck.' "Extra, Extra!" 7/30/2010 via flickr Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License. |
1. Connect the issue to your audience's world view:
This should be easy, because I'm trying to target people who currently think that the Earth is in too bad of a shape to fund space exploration. I can start off by acknowledging that point, and saying, "yes, it absolutely is, and people need to do stuff about it." But also, I can list off some of the ways space exploration has helped people in the past.
Body:
1. List out the major supporting arguments:
NASA's allowance is under one and a half a percent of the national budget (most people probably think it is a lot more).
There are other government programs, despite the amount of money they receive, that most would argue are more wasteful than NASA (so going after NASA is a bad place to start).
The nature of how the money is spent (off earth, whereas there are problems on earth), while rhetorically appealing (it sounds cool to say "why spend money in space when there are problems on Earth?"), doesn't matter.
2. List down major criticisms:
I honestly can't think of any beyond the emotional appeal of "it doesn't help those in dire need of help."
I guess someone could say that they really don't have any interest in anything beyond Earth, which is a valid opinion.
17 billion dollars a year is a lot of money.
3. Select your key support and rebuttal points.
I'll include all of them. They are all pretty important, and the rebuttal points I have there are all I could think of.
4. Write out a tentative topic sentence for each point:
+
NASA's annual budget is far lower than most people think.
NASA is not the program to cut.
We need to keep in mind what really matters when it comes to spending.
-
Absolutely, there are people in need of help, and money can go a lot of the way in helping.
It's possible that some think space exploration is a waste of time for no other reason than that it doesn't interest them.
NASA costs a lot of money to run.
5. Gather evidence:
Global crises:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-crisis-food-water-and-fuel-three-fundamental-necessities-of-life-in-jeopardy/9191
National budget:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/budget.pdf
6. Map
 |
| This is the coggle map I made to guide my writing of project 3 |
4. Common ground:
Definitely common ground, because I absolutely agree that people need to do something about the rampant poverty, hunger, war, etc. that humans face. It's only that I don't think that cutting space exploration is the way to get the money for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)