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.