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.