Considering Types

Like the labs pictured below, public arguments come in different types. Each type is better suited to different topics and rhetorical situations.

smerikal "Vesileikit" 07/17/2011 via Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0

I believe that the most appropriate argument type for my rhetorical situation is the causal argument. This argument will allow me to focus on identifying the root causes of the failure of the F-35 program, while guiding the audience to understand potential solutions, or come up with their own.

I could make a position argument, but public opinion on the controversy is heavily skewed against the F-35 program. While I like the idea of a proposal argument, I fear that a proposal argument would require me to analyze the political side of the controversy in greater depth, as any solution would have to got through Congress. I could develop an evaluative or refutation argument by targeting a specific side of the controversy, but that would require a heavily opinionated argument.

I read Brandon's Considering Types and Rhetorical Action Plan posts, as well as Dylan's Considering Types and Rhetorical Action Plan posts. Both Brandon and Dylan had good ideas for the direction of their projects. They both have different topics and genres from me, and accordingly chose different types of arguments. Any type of argument can be effective if it is used in an appropriate rhetorical situation and effectively uses rhetorical strategies to present an opinion.

My Rhetorical Action Plan

The rhetorical action plan below is similar to the outline that was created for project two. The rhetorical action plan allows an author to develop a plan for addressing his audience and issue.

MacEntee, Sean "call to action" 05/03/2011 via Flickr CC BY 2.0

Audience 

1. What does your audience know about the topic?

Engineering majors would be familiar with the methodology behind the creation of the F-35 fighter, but they may not be familiar with the specifics of the program itself.

2. What values might your audience hold?

Engineers value logic and efficiency.

3. What type of research or evidence do you think will be most effective for your audience? 

Research on the context surrounding the F-35, as well as the data supporting my position will be the most effective for my audience.

4. What visual evidence might your audience respond to and why?

Charts or graphs are the best way to visually impact my audience, because they expect to see some form of data in an argument.

5. What is the purpose of your public debate?

My goal is to raise awareness of the root causes of the failure of the F-35 program. Raising awareness may help prevent similar problems with future defense programs.

Genre


1. What genre will you be writing in and what is the function of it?

Opinion Column
I may write an opinion piece for a magazine or newspaper. In this genre, an author presents his opinion on a subject related to the publication.

Examples 
Drones Could Bring Better Medical Care To Rural Patients 
What We Can Learn From the Epic Failure of Google Flu Trends
 
Scholarly Article
Alternatively, I could write a scholarly article for an engineering journal. This genre includes analysis of technical subjects, typically with purely logos based arguments.

Examples
Overview of the DAEDALOS project 
Survey on the novel hybrid aquatic–aerial amphibious aircraft: Aquatic unmanned aerial vehicle (AquaUAV)

2. What is the setting of your genre?

The opinion column could be written for a science and technology magazine like Popular Science or Wired. The scholarly article could be written for engineering journals like Progress in Aerospace Sciences.

3. How will you use rhetorical strategies in this genre?

Both genres require logic based arguments.

4. What type of visual aids will you be using in this genre?

The opinion column would give me more freedom for use of visual aids, but charts or graphs would be useful in both genres.

5. What type of style will you be using in this genre?

The scholarly article requires an academic style, but formal would suffice for the opinion column.

Response/Actions

1. Positive Support

• The F-35 has been too costly and taken too long to develop.
• More realistic and specialized defense goals should be used in the future to prevent inflation of blanket projects like the F-35.
• Politicians who blindly support these programs should not be trusted.

2. Negative Rebuttals

• The F-35 program is nearing successful completion.
• The F-35 combined multiple programs that would have been just as costly.
• The engineers working on the program simply failed to deliver capabilities that were within reach.

3. Refutation of Negative Rebuttals

• The F-35 program has exceeded its budget and failed to meet deadlines numerous times, and still has software and implementation issues to work out before its completion.
• With smaller programs, the government would not be as invested in the success of any one program.
• The demands of the project prevented specialized development of key engineering components.  

Analyzing Purpose

 

Sarabia, Luis "Existentialism In Calvin and Hobbes" 07/09/2008 via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

1. What is the goal of your public argument? What do you want your readers to believe at the end of it?

I am attempting to convince my readers that the failures of the F-35 program are attributable to a flawed defense strategy rather than poor engineering or management.

2. Plausible Reactions

• Readers become more sympathetic towards the employees behind the F-35 and the program itself.
• They become more critical of defense strategy in politics. 
• Readers vote against politicians who support programs like the F-35.
• Readers reject my theory and continue to focus on the undelivered capabilities and unmet deadlines of the F-35.

3. Not Plausible Reactions

•  Readers claim that the F-35 is a complete success, (unless the reader is a Lockheed Martin leader, or a lobbyist).

4. Chain of Likely Consequences

• My public argument, in combination with numerous other arguments with different perspectives convince their readers that the defense strategy behind programs like the F-35 is flawed.
• Enough people are convinced that eventually the strategy is changed and future programs do not inflate to the extent that the F-35 has.

5. Possible Audience to Achieve Goal

A large contributing factor to the continuation of the F-35 program is the lack of weight that public opinion holds in the controversy. Politicians and businessmen hold the most power in the controversy, but they are not easily swayed. Furthermore, the general public is becoming less and less trusting of politicians and businessmen. To bridge this gap, a strong logic based argument should be made. As such, I will target engineering students for my audience. Engineering students represent the future of these programs, and hold weight in the argument through their expertise in the field.

Analyzing Context

 

Rankin, Stuart "Context for Andromeda" 01/04/2015 via Flickr CC BY-NC 2.0

1. What are the key perspectives on the debate you are studying?

• Large-scale defense programs like the F-35 are too expensive, and make the defense industry too dependent on their success.
•  Consolidating multiple programs into one is the most cost effective way to run the defense industry.

2. What are the major points of contention among these perspectives?

• Which strategy is more economically effective?
• Can the goals of multiple programs be consolidated without negatively affecting product performance.

3. What are the possible points of agreement among the differing viewpoints?

• The defense industry needs to produce optimized defense mechanisms to meet the goals of all U.S. military branches.
• Defense spending needs to be managed better.

4. What are the ideologies between differing perspectives?
Pro F-35:

• Combining programs will reduce cost because only one product will have to be made.

Anti F-35:

• Combining programs makes it more difficult to meet the differing goals of each program.
• Investing in numerous small programs creates competition, leading to an optimized product.
• Investing in small programs prevents dependency on any one program.

5. What specific actions do their perspectives ask their audience to take?

Both perspectives ask for political support from the audience.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your argument? Why?

The anti-F-35 side will be useful in supporting my argument, as I will be arguing that the nature and background of the F-35 inhibited its success.

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why?

The majority of public arguments are anti-F-35. However, F-35 proponents may point to the program's international support, and recent progress.

I commented on Mehruba and Kyle's context analyses. All three of our controversies basically have two overarching perspectives. For my public argument, I plan to analyze the issue from a new perspective. I think this will help me appeal to readers on both sides of the argument, which is also something that Kyle is focusing on. Although Mehruba is siding with one of the major groups in her argument, she is focusing on logically supporting her argument, and refuting the opposing argument, which is central to this project.

Project 2

Here is my final version of project two.

Norris, Tim "...and in last place." 08/23/2008 via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Audience and Genre

Any public argument must be written for a specific intended audience, and much of the work that an author does is determined through analysis of the audience.

QUOI Media Group "Audience" 03/26/2011 via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Potential Audiences:
1. Aerospace engineering majors

I got the idea for focusing on the engineering aspects of the F-35 controversy from the intended audience of project two. By addressing this part of the controversy, I could write my public argument for essentially the same audience that I wrote my rhetorical analysis for in project two. Aerospace engineering students may also be curious about job outlook within the F-35 program.

To reach an audience of aerospace engineering students, I would write either a scholarly article, or an op-ed piece in a college newspaper. The scholarly article could be published in an aerospace engineering journal like Progress in Aerospace Sciences. A review of an aerospace engineering project is one example of a scholarly article in this journal. A second review of an aerospace engineering project reinforces the conventions of the genre. The newspaper piece could potentially be published in the Arizona Daily Wildcat, like this column. A second column, also posted in the Opinion section of the newspaper reveals that the conventions of this type of article are much less formal than a scholarly article, and are structurally similar to the conventions of a blog post.

2. Politicians

In an attempt to cause real change in the issue, I could target politicians with my argument to convince them to side with my opinion. The F-35 is controversial in politics, and has many lobbyists supporting it. Politicians interested in saving government money would be interested in finding large programs to cut, which are not held in high esteem by the general public.

To persuade politicians I would have to either write letters to specific politicians, or acting as a politician myself, write a proposal. Senator John McCain has long been a critic of the F-35 program, so I could write a letter to him to persuade him to stir action in congress. This letter on McCain's website is more of a supportive letter than a persuasive letter, but the conventions should be similar. Another example is this call to action letter regarding the USDA Rural Cooperative Development Grant. Congressional acts are presented in Congress by senators, or house representatives. One example of a congressional act is the Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2015. More closely related to the controversy, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016 covers all planned DOD spending for the next year.

Extended Annotated Bibliography

Here is the link to my extended annotated bibliography.

papertrix "bibliography" 08/28/2005 via Flickr CC BY-NC 2.0

The sources I found build on my previous research, and will assist me in answering my research questions.

Narrowing My Focus

 The previous list of research questions was expansive, so here is a narrowed list.

Moura Pinheiro, Pedro "frickin' 6x7 with fricken' laser beam thru the viewfinder"
03/08/2011 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 

Who are the key people on the teams that designed the F-35?

What are the specific complaints about the capabilities of the F-35?

What events led up to the creation of such a large fighter development program?

I chose to focus on these three questions because for project three, I want to focus more on the design and capabilities aspects of the controversy as opposed to the political and economical aspects. Learning more about the engineering design teams will give me a different perspective on the controversy. The capabilities of the F-35 are central to the controversy. The events leading up to the creation of the F-35 program will provide me with more context about the program and its goals.

Questions About Controversy

I am continuing my research on the F-35 controversy. Below are a list of research questions that I will base my research on.

Reynolds, Leo "Question Mark" 09/07/2013 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

WHO:
Which group holds the most power in the direction of the F-35 program?
Which politicians are primarily responsible for the F-35's continued funding?
Who are the key people on the teams that designed the F-35?

WHAT:
What are the specific complaints about the capabilities of the F-35?
How is the funding being spent, and why does the program require so much money?
What are the valid alternatives to the F-35?

WHEN:
When was the project originally supposed to be completed by?
What events led up to the creation of such a large fighter development program?
What was the popular opinion about the program when it first started?

WHERE:
What is the public opinion in other countries where the F-35 has an impact?
Where is the F-35 going to be implemented?
Where do the leaders in the program meet to discuss plans?

HOW:
How are competing manufacturers reacting to the controversy?
How do opinions posted through general popular media and social media affect the program?
How do opinions in scholarly media affect the program?

Punctuation, Part 2

It is important to follow the safety rules of punctuation, otherwise you may inadvertently create an "improvement," like the one shown below.

j l t "companion season & bag limits" 06/06/2007 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0



Copy for Paragraph Analysis 2

Here is the link to my paragraph analysis for project two.

Cunningham, Simon "Analysis" 12/18/2013 via Flickr CC BY 2.0

Overall, I think I did a good job of focusing on the main idea, stated in my thesis, and developing it. I need to improve my transitions between paragraphs and switch to my new conclusion from the previous blog post. My original conclusion was too focused on summarizing claims.

Revised Conclusion

My original conclusion was too focused on summarizing the claims addressed in the body paragraphs. I also inadvertently introduced new claims. Building on the ideas I incorporated in my revised introduction, I tied my new conclusion back to my original introduction. I decided to stick to the original introduction I wrote, and revise that for the final draft.

Rotman, Steve "END" 03/08/2005 via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Old Conclusion

     As a whole, David Francis creates an effective argument against the continued funding of the F-35 program by employing ethos and logos rhetorical strategies. However, his success is limited to his target audience. Trained and unbiased readers should be able to spot holes in his argument, and rhetorical elements that lack full development. His failure to acknowledge counterarguments, a typo in the introduction, and a clear bias all hurt his pathos. His choice to include only large statistics with negative connotations is useful in affecting his audience emotionally, but is not airtight as far as logos is concerned. Additionally his application of the Air Force strategic plan to the F-35 is questionable as the document does not specify how the F-35 fits into the Air Force’s updated strategy. Overall, Francis’ final product could use some more research and development, but it is likely adequate for the majority of his readers.

 

New Conclusion

    An engine roars. A rocket launches. An airplane takes off. It is the marvel of modern flight, but none of this can happen without rhetoric. Of course, it is engineering design and funding that make flight physically possible, but rhetoric is an important component that is often relegated to the background. To achieve flight, the engineers and businessmen must use effective rhetorical strategies to procure support and funding for aerospace engineering projects. However, the implementation of rhetorical strategies does not end there. As a project develops, it is likely to stir controversy. Supporters and opponents of a project voice their opinions through relevant genres to persuade specific audiences to support or undermine the project. To defend his work, an engineer must be able to communicate the logic that supports the project, and refute the rhetoric of opposing speakers. In the example article, Francis opposes the continuation of the F-35 fighter program.  As a whole, David Francis creates an effective argument against the continued funding of the F-35 program by employing ethos and logos rhetorical strategies. However, his success is limited to his target audience. The engineers, businessmen, and politicians behind the F-35 program must be equally adept at creating arguments within specific rhetorical situations to garner support for the program.

Revised Introduction

My new introduction has a better hook, and cuts down on wordiness. Both introductions make rhetorical analysis relevant for the intended audience. I believe that the analogy I used in the first introduction does a better job of providing context and preparing the reader for successive paragraphs. I think the analogy used in my second introduction may be more effectively used in my conclusion. I may explore this idea in my next blog post.

Ramachandran, Karthick "A New Beginning"
11/28/2010 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Old Introduction

    To effectively craft a persuasive argument, a writer must undergo a writing process similar to the engineering design process. Like any product, an essay must be written with a specific consumer or audience in mind. The engineer brainstorms, designs, prototypes, tests, and improves the product before commercializing it. Similarly, the author comes up with ideas, plans out his essay, writes a draft, has it peer reviewed, and revises it before submitting a final essay. In the engineering industry, engineers will often reverse engineer products made by other engineers to understand their design and operation. The same thing can be done with writing. Deconstructing a text to fully understand its meaning is called rhetorical analysis, and it involves close reading a text to recognize and criticize the rhetorical situation and rhetorical devices used in a text. Texts within the aerospace engineering industry often rely heavily on logos in the development of an argument, because logos is widely respected as a rhetorical strategy in the scientific community. One example of this type of rhetoric is the article "How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force,” by David Francis. Although the article lacks in-depth analysis of the engineering behind the F-35 fighter, it offers criticism of the program from an economical standpoint. As economics is the driving force behind all engineering design, it is important to be able to understand articles like this, and judge their credibility. In the article, "How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force," David Francis primarily employs statistics, expert opinions, and appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience as techniques to support his argument that the F-35 program is ineffective and costly. Considering the context of the article, his argument is effective, but lacks full rhetorical development.
 

New Introduction

     An engine starts. A rocket launches. An airplane takes off. It is the marvel of modern flight, but none of this can happen without rhetoric. Of course, it is engineering design and funding that make flight physically possible, but rhetoric is an important component that is often relegated to the background. To achieve flight, the engineers and businessmen must use effective rhetorical strategies to procure support and funding for aerospace engineering projects. It is necessary for aspiring engineers to understand how to create an effective argument within various facets of the industry. One method for learning about rhetoric is reverse engineering an example article. The article how DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force” by David Francis critiques an aerospace engineering controversy from a politico-economic standpoint. Francis primarily employs statistics, expert opinions, and appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience as techniques to support his argument that the F-35 program is ineffective and costly. Considering the context of the article, his argument is effective, but lacks full rhetorical development.

Reflection on Project 2 Draft

I peer reviewed Mika and Jayni's rhetorical analysis essay drafts.

Rodriguez Martin, David "Reflections"

1. Do you have an identifiable thesis? Does it point to the specific rhetorical strategies you analyze in your essay, or are you merely using vague terms like ethos, pathos, and logos?

My thesis is easily identifiable and recognizes specific rhetorical strategies to analyze.

2. How have you decided to organize your essay? Does each paragraph have a central point that is supported with evidence from the text and in-depth analysis?



Each body paragraph has a central point with at least two textual examples that I have analyzed. The body paragraphs start with a topic sentence, end with a transition, and have contextual information weaved into the textual evidence and analysis.

 

3. Did you clearly identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation and/or structure?

 

Yes. In a paragraph about rhetorical situation, I analyzed the identity of the author, the context surrounding the creation of the text, and the message and purpose of the text. This paragraph probably needs more development.

 

4. Did you explain how and why certain rhetorical strategies were employed? Did you discuss what effects these strategies have on the intended audience and overall effectiveness of the text?

 

Yes. Although I was not really sure if I should discuss the effectiveness of the text for the perception of the audience or its overall effectiveness for an unbiased audience, so I included a bit of discussion about both.

 

5. Are you thoughtfully using evidence in each paragraph? Do you mention specific examples from the text and explain why they are relevant?

 

Yes. It would be useful to incorporate a wider variety of evidence from the text because most of the examples I used were from the same section in the text.

 

6. Do you leave your reader wanting more? Do you answer the "so what" question in your conclusion?

 

No. I think my conclusion is too focused on the example article. It should expand the concepts I discussed to create a more general idea of how rhetoric can be used effectively, and how rhetorical analysis can be helpful in aerospace engineering.

Punctuation, Part 1

Punctuation is an important part of writing. Incorrect use of punctuation can make the meaning of a text unclear.

Trotman, Kevin "Heavy Punctuation Crossing" 04/07/2005
via Flickr CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The Comma

Essentially, a comma should be used before a conjunction in a compound sentence with two separate ideas. A comma should also be used after an introductory clause or phrase as in the sentence above. A conjunction does not replace a comma in a list of three or more items. Adjectives that modify a noun separately should be separated with commas. Commas should also be used to set off parentheticals, interjections, and direct quotations.

The Apostrophe

When a word ends in s, add only an apostrophe. To show joint possession, add an 's or s' to only the last noun. I realized that I had been misusing apostrophes in the read/reply/reflect sections of some of my blog posts. Apostrophes should be used for lower case letters and upper case A or I.

Quotation Marks

Quotation marks encompass direct quotations, excluding block quotes. Single quotation marks should be used within direct quotations. I made this mistake in my essay draft. Titles of short works that are referenced in a text should be enclosed in quotation marks. Periods and commas should be placed inside quotation marks, but colons and semicolons should be placed outside quotation marks.

In Mika's draft, he effectively used commas in the sentence, "In the last hundred years, humans have invented the radio, film, television, automobiles, flight, and the internet, and soon enough, intelligences that will think for themselves." He avoided the common mistake of using a conjunction without a comma for the last item in a list. He also effectively offset a transitional phrase for his second idea in the sentence.
In Jayni's draft, her use of both quotation marks and commas in the sentence, "This article, 'Why the Scientific Case Against Fracking Keeps Getting Stronger', is published in the environment section of the website, Mother Jones, and the people that usually view content found here are likely to be scientifically minded," is mostly correct. The only error is that the comma following the name of her article should be inside the quotation mark. Note that after pasting the quote from her analysis, I switched the quotation marks around her article title to single quotation marks, and changed the period at the end of the quotation to a comma to match the punctuation conventions described in Rules for Writers.

Both of the above example sentences could probably be clarified by being divided into multiple sentences, as they are both comma heavy and develop multiple ideas.

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Here is the draft of my rhetorical analysis paper.

teachandlearn "Essay structure diagram by a grade seven student"
 01/23/2008 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Primarily, I want to make sure that my introduction and conclusion fit the guidelines, and that I included enough textual evidence. I basically wrote my draft all at once so there could be some oversights. I put a lot of emphasis on engaging with my particular audience and staying focused on rhetorical analysis.

Project 2 Outline

I structured the information in my outline in a way that will be easily transferrable to my essay. I generally followed the advice from the Writing Public Lives reading while also drawing from my outlining experiences in past classes. My introduction section consists of an opening device, context, statement of purpose, a connection, and the thesis statement. My body paragraphs include topic sentences that support the thesis statement, examples with analysis that support the topic sentences, and a closing/transition sentence. My conclusion is essentially composed of a restatement of the thesis and an expansion of the ideas in my body.

Matthews, Len "Australian Standard Garratt outline" 01/16/2015 via Flickr CC BY-ND 2.0

I. Introduction

A. Opening Device:

To effectively craft a persuasive argument, a writer must undergo a writing process similar to the engineering design process.

B. Context:

• Comparison of rhetorical analysis and engineering
• introduction of example text

C. Purpose:

• Explanation of usefulness of rhetorical analysis in engineering

D. Relate ABC:

• How analysis of example text will be useful

E. Thesis Statement:

In the article, "How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force," David Francis primarily employs statistics, expert opinions, and appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience as techniques to support his argument that the F-35 program is ineffective and costly. Considering the context of the article, his argument is effective, but lacks full rhetorical development.

II. Body Paragraphs

A. Paragraph A:

1. Reason 1/Claim 1:

For the example article, the primary rhetorical situation elements that determine the article’s methodology are the identity of its author, the context surrounding the creation of the text, and the message and purpose of the text.

a. Example 1:

• David Francis is "an editor-at-large for The Fiscal Times". 
• He writes about a wide variety of topics in many different publications.

 b. Explanation 1:

• This may give him a broader view of the issue.

c. Example 2:

• It was published in The Fiscal Times.

d. Explanation 2:

• The article focuses on the economic aspects of the controversy.

 

End Sentence:

While the title describes the more explicit message, there is also an underlying expansion of the same idea.

B. Paragraph B:

1. Reason 1/Claim 1:

David Francis incorporates expert opinions combined with references to credible sources into his argument to effectively support his claims about the failure of the F-35 program.

a. Example 1:

• Francis introduces the document “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future,” to support his argument.

b. Explanation 1:

• The document is a thirty year strategic plan written by the Air Force for the Air Force, which he frequently references in support of his argument.
• Francis cleverly selects quotes from the document which seem to be condemning of large programs like the F-35.
• Francis applies the ideology from the document to the F-35 program to prove that it does not fit in with the Air Force’s strategic plan.

c. Example 2:

• Francis also cites data from Winslow Wheeler, a “staff member at the Project On Government Oversight.”

d. Explanation 2:

• By referencing the Air Force and POGO, Francis builds his credibility, while demonstrating similar condemnation of the F-35 program by outside sources.

e. Example 3:

• The reference is littered with hyperlinks to other articles from credible publications.

f. Explanation 3:

• The links to other credible sources provide readers with an opportunity to do more research on the topic.
• The articles were carefully chosen by the author to support his argument.

End Sentence:

C. Paragraph C:

1. Reason 1/Claim 1:

Francis attempts to appeal to an audience of logical thinkers by reporting numerous statistics. He combines this logical application of numbers with a “shocking statistics” ethos factor to rile up the audience and make them sympathize with his views.

a. Example 1:

• Francis includes the forecast that the F-35 program will cost $1.5 trillion in both the title and the introduction.

b. Explanation 1:

• This inclusion prepares the reader for his criticism of the economic aspects of the program, as well as shocking the audience with the astronomical cost of the program.
• Francis intentionally used the larger value of the forecast instead of the current cost to better grab the reader’s attention.

c. Example 2:

• The DOD “is expected to lose $600 billion over the next decade.”

d. Explanation 2:

• This statistic shows that spending such a large amount of money on one program is not practical with an ever decreasing budget.

e. Example 3:

• Francis closes with shocking statistics about the taxpayer cost of the program.

f. Explanation 3:

• By including these statistics, Francis is able to evoke anger in his audience of American taxpayers.

End Sentence:

By making the controversy a matter of personal interest for his readers, Francis is convince them that the F-35 and other large programs need to be eliminated.

D. Paragraph D:

1. Reason 1/Claim 1:

Based on the context of his article, Francis is able to make assumptions about his audience’s values and exploit them in his argument.

a. Example 1:

• The author expects the audience to value efficiency, their own money, and government stability.

b. Explanation 1:

• The relationship between politics and the economy is always a fiery topic of debate in America, and Francis looks at the F-35 controversy through a politico-economic lens to appeal to the American public.

c. Example 2:

• Francis addresses the overarching issues indirectly by targeting the F-35 as a prime example.
   

d. Explanation 2:

• Composition logical fallacy

End Sentence:

Although there are many global issues surrounding the F-35, the author focuses solely on its impact on the American economy, revealing his intention of criticizing the United States Government's management of the program.

 

III. Conclusion

A. Restatement of thesis:

As a whole, David Francis creates an effective argument against the continued funding of the F-35 program by employing ethos and logos rhetorical strategies. However, his success is limited to his target audience.

B. Expansion of ideas:

• Trained and unbiased readers should be able to spot holes in his argument, and rhetorical elements that lack full development.
• His failure to acknowledge counterarguments, a typo in the introduction, and a clear bias all hurt his pathos.
• His choice to include only large statistics with negative connotations is useful in affecting his audience emotionally, but is not airtight as far as logos is concerned.
• Additionally his application of the Air Force strategic plan to the F-35 is questionable as the document does not specify how the F-35 fits into the Air Force’s updated strategy.

C. Closing Statement:

Overall, Francis’ final product could use some more research and development, but it is likely adequate for the majority of his readers.

 

I reviewed Mehruba and Nick's outlines. In high school I was taught to make outlines with potential sentences to use in my actual essay to simplify the writing process. Nick and Mehruba's outlines were shorter and more conceptual. I can see a benefit to both types of outlines. For mine, I had to think conceptually about the organization of my essay in order to write sentences for each component. Overall I think all three of us have planned the organization of our essays well.

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

Summary and paraphrase are useful tools in rhetorical analysis when used appropriately.

Bronwynne Jones, Gwyneth Anne "Paraphrase_Graphic"
11/03/2013 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Original Source:

“The F-35 has come to symbolize all that’s wrong with American defense spending: uncontrolled bloat, unaccountable manufacturers (in this case, Lockheed Martin), and an internal Pentagon culture that cannot adequately track taxpayer dollars.”
My Paraphrase of Original Source:

The competence of DOD spending has declined into mismanagement of taxpayer money and inability to force involved manufacturers to take responsibility for failures. The F-35 is a prime example of corrupt DOD spending in which Lockheed Martin did not take responsibility for the program's failures.

My Summary of Original Source:

The F-35 is an embodiment of poor defense spending.

Analyzing My Audience

The target audience is the driving force behind the rhetoric of a text. It is important to identify the audience before writing a persuasive argument in order to tailor the argument to the audience's viewpoint.

orkomedix "Audience?" 06/30/2009 via Flickr CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Who am I writing for? What are the audience's beliefs and assumptions?

I am analyzing the rhetoric of an article relating to aerospace engineering for new aerospace engineering students to read. Aerospace engineering students value logic and efficiency. Engineers typically respect each other, and expect the designs of other engineers to be as logical as their own would be.

What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this position?

An aerospace engineering student would value a discussion of design, manufacturing, and testing of the F-35 more than an economical analysis. However, all engineering processes have a common goal of yielding an optimized product at a minimum cost. In my rhetorical analysis, I will have to make the author's reasoning for exclusively focusing on economics and incorporating spending statistics clear.

What will they want to know?

They will want to know whether David Francis, (the author of the article being examined), is qualified to pass judgement on the work of engineers. Additionally, the logical grounding of his argument will have to be closely examined.

How might they react to my argument?

As my argument takes a balanced approach to the issue, but is critical of Francis' strategies, my audience will likely agree with my viewpoint.

How am I trying to relate to or connect with my audience?

I will relate to my audience through by weaving engineering methodology into the conduction of my rhetorical analysis.

Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?

By targeting ethos and logos, I will be able to appeal to the logical thinkers that compose the college of engineering.

I read Mika and Mehruba's posts about audience. They both have audiences who will rely on logic in making judgements, just like my audience of aerospace engineering majors. Overall, Mika and Mehruba did a good job of preparing to write a rhetorical analysis essay with a specific audience in mind. I think all of us understood the main idea of this post. It is necessary to address the views of your audience to write an effective argument.

Draft Thesis Statements

A thesis statement guides the body of an essay. A thesis statement must be deep enough to require evidence and support, but specific enough to be addressed in a 4-5 page paper.

MacEntee, Sean "Thesis" 10/14/2010 via Flickr CC BY 2.0

1. David Francis' attempt to convince readers that the F-35 program is a complete waste of money, in his article "How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force," is generally effective for his intended audience, but lacks full rhetorical development.

2. David Francis relies heavily on logos and ethos in his article "How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force," to develop the argument that the F-35 program is ineffective and costly. Considering the context of the article, his argument is effective, but extremely limited.

3. In the article, "How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force," David Francis primarily employs statistics, expert opinions, and appeals to values or beliefs shared by the audience as techniques to support his argument that the F-35 program embodies poor DOD spending. His persuasive argument is effective for the audience that he is targeting.

I will probably use some combination of the above thesis statements. Each of them has its own merits and issues, but they all represent a prediction of my analysis of the article.

I read Carter and Mika's thesis statement draft posts. After reading their draft thesis statements, I am more confident in the methodology I used to create my thesis statements. I understand that the focus must be on rhetorical analysis, and the thesis should present an argument about the example article's rhetoric. Carter and Mika both went into a more detailed analysis of each of their theses, but I think mine are similar enough and developed enough that I can use ideas or structure from any of them rather than selecting one.

Cluster of "How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force"

Blocker, Trey "Screenshot" 10/13/2015 via Coggle

The cluster I created for this article, incorporates three separate components of rhetorical analysis. This overview of the article's rhetoric will help me narrow down which components to focus on in the project 2 essay.