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.