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)

Children drawing. "Pegasus with large mane" 4/7/2015 via torange
Attribution 4.0 International License.

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.

Black, Les. "Boy Testing Eye Site" 4/20/2013 via flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

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.

Project 3 Outline

This post will outline the content I'll need to include for project 3.

'gfpeck.' "Extra, Extra!" 7/30/2010 via flickr
Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

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

This is the coggle map I made to guide my writing of project 3

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.

Analyzing My Genre

Breman, Joel. "Laboratorian was shown looking through a microscope at samples collected from the field free stock photograph" 3/7/2015 via publicdomainimages.
Public domain.

This post will answer basic question about the genre I'll be writing in for project 3. They will help me to understand better how I will need to write to fit withing the genre of an op-ed. The following are examples of op-ed's from various online sources.


Example 1 (LA Times)
Example 2 (NY Times)
Example 3 (Washington Post)
Example 4 (Washington Post)
Example 5 (NY Times)

Social context:

This genre is always set in a newspaper, either physical or online. This is because it is "opposite the editorials," meaning there have to be editorials to be opposite from.

The subject of the genre can really be anything. They are op-eds about everything someone can have an opinion on.

Anyone can use this genre. It's open to everyone to submit an op-ed, (except, I guess the editorial board, because they would just write an editorial), and then the editors can choose which ones they want to publish.

Usually, this genre is used to express someone's opinion, when they feel not enough people agree. The goal the writers can have could be anything from make a point of view known to start a riot to change something. Usually, it's just to inform the public of a point of view, and make them agree.

Rhetorical patterns of the genre:

Because the subject matter is so widely varied, the content included is, too. Depending on the particular subject, the author could include anything from personal stories to historical facts, statistics, or whatever fits the subject.

Again, because the subject matter varies a lot, so too will the uses of logos ethos and pathos. for example, in Example three, the op-ed is about the struggle of being a widow, so it naturally includes a lot of pathos to show that emotional struggle. on the other hand, Example two tries to convince the reader that religion doesn't make people non-violent, so it needs to rely on logos more heavily than others, as that is something that needs to be proven, not 'felt.'

The genre is typically pretty short (fewer than 750 words) so they don't have much room to develop in interesting or unique ways. More or less, they tend to introduce the topic in a short intro, and dive right into what they want to say. Then the conclusion is a pretty standard one, if but a little bit short. Overall, it's like a normal essay, but in a strict length constraint.

Most of them aren't too formal, and use "I" to remind the reader that it is an opinion, especially in example 3. other than that, nothing really stands out. There aren't many questions, or exclamations, likely because the authors only have a short amount of time to get what they need to say to the readers, which leaves no time to get 'cute' with their rhetoric.

The words usually aren't overly formal or academic, and the language is usually fairly simple, as the author aren't trying to show off how smart they are or confuse people, and they especially don't want anyone to not get what they are trying to say just because they don't understand the language. However, if the subject is technical enough, like in example 2, the language can get a bit more advanced.

Rhetorical patterns revealing social context:

The genre includes and excludes people at the discretion of the newspaper, so if the message is something the newspaper is against, it probably won't be published, and the author will have to find another with an agreeing view on the subject. ultimately, the genre goes along with the newspapers' biases.

The genre encourages the writers to express their opinions clearly and openly, and the readers to take everything with a grain of salt (as it is, after all, an opinion).

The values and beliefs are usually whatever goes along with what the publisher would hold. beyond that fairly vague description, it's probably safer not to assume anything beyond the basic things everyone agrees with, as the point of an op-ed is to reach a whole lot of people, who are hard to generalize.

This genre need supporting evidence, and a good amount of personal input from the author goes a long way in an opinion piece. Long-winded summaries and explanations of general things that are common knowledge, or really anything that doesn't move the piece along would be out of place in an op-ed, as the readers don't usually know what they are getting into before they read the title. This means that most of the readers probably won't have chosen to read about that particular subject until it was put right in front of them.

Considering Types

This post will decide on what kind of argument I will end up writing, and why.

'o5com.' "Men Arguing" 8/25/2010 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

My whole goal for this project is to refute a specific reason I've seen come up for not supporting space exploration, so the best type of argument for that is the refutation argument. In this style I can easily 'attack' that view, in the sense that I want to show that it's a bad one. I don't want to just explain why another person's argument supporting space exploration is good (evaluative argument). I also don't know what I could really argue if I just want to identify a cause o a problem (causal argument). And I also wouldn't feel perfectly comfortable just proposing a solution to the problem (Proposal argument).

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.

Analyzing Purpose

This post will provide information on the goal of my public argument, and possible outcomes.

This is my coggle cluster for progect 3

You can view the original version of this cluster on cloggle here

Really, the people my argument will be aimed at will be anyone who currently thinks that Space exploration is a waste of money that should be instead given to those in need. These are the only people who, after reading my argument, could start supporting space exploration. It's possible that someone who has never thought about whether they think space exploration is a good thing reads what I write, in which case, hopefully, they agree with me against what I see as the strongest argument against space exploration.