Reflection on Project 2

Rhetorical Analysis-The Final Copy

Punctuation, Part 2

Paragraph Analysis 2

Revised Conclusion

Revised Introduction

Refection on Project 2 Draft

Punctuation, Part 1

Draft of Rhetorical Analysis

Practicing Summary and Paraphrase

In any piece of writing, it is important to cite your source correctly so it is known where you got the information and so credit can be given to the original source. This blog post includes my attempt at summarizing and paraphrasing a quote from my article for Project 2, "A Fracking Good Story."

Dombrowski, Quinn. "The 'Library'" 6/10/2010 via Flickr. Attribution License

Original Source
"Climate economists repeatedly have pointed out that such energy innovation is the most effective climate solution, because it is the surest way to drive the price of future green energy sources below that of fossil fuels. By contrast, subsidizing current, ineffective solar power or ethanol mostly wastes money while benefiting special interests."

My Paraphrase of Original Source
Lomborg identifies fracking as the best solution to climate change, claiming that climate economists have stated that it will make environmentally sustainable energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels in the future. He states that renewable energy sources are ineffective, so the government funding of such practices is not spending money for the best interest of society as a whole.

My Summary of the Original Source
Lomborg uses climate economists to back his claim that fracking is the most cost efficient energy source to fight climate change rather than renewable energy sources, which he deems ineffective and costly.

Project 2 Outline

This blog post will include my outline for the rhetorical analysis I will conduct for Project 2. Outlining the content of your essay before drafting is important so that all is included that should be.

Alborz, Shawn. "Organize" 4/2/2007 via Flickr. Attribution License

The reading on how to structure each section of our essay clarified some important conventions of a rhetorical analysis for me. With regards to the introduction, it advised that I "set up [my] particular perspective or reading of the text" (Minnix 122), so instead of discussing the ideas of the article I would need to choose the ideas and their relation to the argument I will present. I also found it important to make sure more my claims "go beyond simply stating the strategy they address" (Minnix 124). Analyze, don't summarize. The reading suggested focusing on "[analyzing one or two strategies" (Minnix 124) which was the most important concept for me in planning my outline. It helped me realize that I should deeply evaluate a few strategies instead of just mentioning a lot more so I don't spread myself too thin.


Outline

Introduction:

• problem of climate change
• explain what fracking is and why there is a controversy, or why energy production is at question in general
• what is common goal of society: identify audience values
• reduce emissions
• eventually switch to renewables or sustainable methods (get away form coal)
• do what is economically feasible and responsible
• thesis statement: Lomborg is aware of the beliefs held by his audience in this context, which are based on the importance of simultaneously looking out for the environment and the financial well-being of society. He supports fracking with credible outside sources in a way that answers to these beliefs, making his argument appear more credible and logical to the audience and therefore effectively conveying his message.

Body Paragraph 1: Use of statistics to show environmental positives of fracking

• emissions reductions: statistics show its effect on cleaning up atmosphere
• explain how repetition of emission reductions emphasizes the environmental positives
• how does highlighting emissions statistics and environmental positives play on cultural values: people want what will reduce climate change, emissions reductions shows fracking is heading in right direction. logic

Body Paragraph 2: Use of statistics and expert opinion to convey economic benefits of fracking

• statistics: gas prices drop
• low energy costs: more spending on other things
• "climate economists" say fracking is best because it will bring green energy costs in future below that of fossil fuels
• how does using economic benefits appeal to logic by audience: emissions dropping and prices dropping as well: best of both worlds. brings green energy costs down to drive away from fossil fuels. logical best fit for an energy source that is putting more money in pockets of the audience, appeals to their values: cost analysis is important. evidence used is also factual so it is believable, more logical argument. 

Body Paragraph 3: Use of statistics to refute proposition of renewable energy switch

• emissions reductions in fracking compared to wind and solar
• cost of these renewable energy sources while taking into account their little effect on emission reduction
• European subsidizing of renewable sources has cost more and done less to reduce emissions compared to fracking: statistics
• explain how this refutation plays on audience idea of a rapid switch to renewable energy being ideal. uses info from above paragraphs and money and environmental objectives of audience in opposite way, comparison to fracking benefits. logical flow, answers audiences questions of a possible other outcome by saying no, there isn't. 
• makes argument look like it take into account all other options and explains why fracking is best, logic and credible argument based on a foundation of knowledge.

Conclusion:

• explain how the order, flow of these strategies answers the questions/values of the audience
• explain how the effective answer to these values makes the argument effective
• consider how this article will make people take action/stand against anti-frackers and promote government support of fracking based on democracy 

Reflection: I read Ayra and Brandon's posts that included their outlines and I think one thing I learned that I could work on is including specific examples in my outline. I think my explanations for my intentions in each paragraph were pretty thorough compared to the posts I read but mentioning specifics in my outline will certainly make writing the essay easier. I think I'm on the right track with how I'm structuring my paragraphs and what elements of rhetoric I use in each one. I think I'm ready to write this essay!

Draft Thesis Statements

This blog post includes my attempt at drafting thesis statements that will effectively present my argument and lead my essay in the right direction towards a good rhetorical analysis. I provide pertinent information on the rhetorical situation and strategies used in the article which I will use to come up with some example theses and then reflect on them. The article I am analyzing can be found here.

Rutter, Richard. "Lightbulb" 9/8/2008 via Flickr. Attribution License

Rhetorical Situation and Strategies

Author-

• Bjorn Lomborg, professor at Copenhagen Business School, director of environmental economics research institute. 
• Author of three books that show skepticism of environmental concerns. 
• Career focus on environmental economics, therefore tries to find solutions to environmental problems that are the best, economically.

Context-

• Published in 2012, fracking is still an issue, not widely accepted yet. 
• The global acceptance of climate change exists. Society has taken on a commitment to do what is best for environment while also meeting global demands.
• Money is a major influence in decision making in society
• Renewable energy sources are ideal, eventual switch is the goal

Audience-

• Target audience is anyone who cares about the environmental and economic well being of the US, specifically, as well as the world
• Audience has cultural values mentioned above: wants the energy source that is environmentally safe and will lead to a sustainable world but economically efficient as well

Message/Purpose-

• Author argues that the recent switch to fracking is responsible for economic success and carbon emission reduction and is therefore the best option for the US and other nations with fracking opportunities
• Author attempts to criticize other methods of new energy production policy, plea to not follow in the footsteps of the failed tactics
• Author wants to convince the audience (the general population) that fracking is a good thing and should be supported rather than banned

Ethos-

• credible sources- makes author look knowledgeable about fracking, enhances his argument
• appeals to audience values- makes him seem like a bearer of truth, he is explaining what is best for society as a whole so they have more trust in him
• word choice- evokes his bias rather than supports significance of benefits like he would plan for
• acknowledgment of counterargument- when refuted, supports his credibility because he seems aware of counterclaims and has the capacity to explain why they are wrong. when not refuted- makes his argument seem weak, can't argue against main point of opposition

Pathos-

• no strategies to create an emotion
• purposely doesn't create pathos so argument is viewed as being more professional

Logos-

• statistics- argument is based on factual evidence and therefore correct
• effective organization of ideas- follows the flow of what the audience might want to know, answers questions for them in the order they would want

Thesis Statements

"Lomborg is aware of the beliefs held by his audience in this context, which are based on the importance of simultaneously looking out for the environment and the financial well-being of society. He supports fracking with factual evidence in a way that answers to these beliefs, making him appear more credible and logical to the audience and therefore constructing an effective argument."

• I dig this thesis because it uses the rhetorical situation of the article to explain how the rhetorical strategies are applied. I'm worried that the thesis supports the effectiveness of the rhetoric used too much so fitting in the ineffectiveness of the rhetorical strategies wouldn't make sense in relation to the thesis.

"Lomborg uses credible sources to support fracking and then to refute its counterclaims, which results in the construction of a logically flowing argument that also appeals to the values of the audience, in the context of the energy debate. However, the subjective word choice that he uses to evaluate the significance of this evidence contributes to the preexisting notion of bias Lomborg may have towards fracking, therefore damaging the credibility of his argument."

• This thesis has a lot in it which is a good and bad thing. I'll have a lot to explain in my body paragraphs, which will demand an in depth analysis of several strategies that can either result in a great essay or a complete hodgepodge. I'll need to make sure I keep the focus of the essay in line with the thesis.

Reflection: I think I did a very good job in developing my thesis statements because they include elements of the rhetorical situation, the strategies used to apply to the situation, and how they affect the effectiveness of the article. I read Ayra and Carter's thesis statements and I am definitely on the right track. Ayra had trouble in recognizing specific strategies in her thesis statements and Carter had a well-developed statement but lacked an overall evaluation of the strategies he mentioned. Both of them had an emphasis on ethos, which I will have in my essay as well.

Analyzing My Audience

In this blog post I will be identifying and analyzing the audience for the rhetorical analysis I will be writing for Project 2. The post will follow my responses to specific questions regarding the audience.

Fisch, Martin. "the audience is shaking" 8/24/2012 via Flickr. Attribution License

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

I am writing for new students in my academic field which is chemical engineering. These students are concerned with how chemical engineering can be used to create systems that most efficiently meet the global resource demands while also taking cost effectiveness into account. They assume that the best method is one that balances production, risk, and cost the best, therefore an argument that conveys these best will be an argument that is most persuasive.


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

If the students are chemical engineers then they probably support the use of fracking because the process is the very product of chemical engineers. Fracking involves the use of chemicals and hydraulics to release natural gas, so an interest in chemical engineering would most likely correlate with an interest and support in the fracking process. This can't be generalized though, because any student could have a different perception on what is the best method of energy production whether it is chemical engineering related or not. I will respond to this by communicating what the author's points are in the article by explaining which aspects of the debate on fracking he is playing on and which aspects he is leaving out.


What will they want to know?

They want to know what are the benefits of fracking and what aspects of the debate are relied upon to present an argument in support of the process. They want to know how the rhetorical situation and strategies used make the argument of the article either well constructed or not.


How might they react to my argument?

I think they will accept my critique on the effectiveness of the rhetoric in the article. They will follow the examples I provide to support or refute the argument of the author because my mention and explanation of the effectiveness of these examples will be communicated in a way that makes sense. Their lack of prior knowledge on the analysis of rhetoric in the field will make communicating my argument less shocking and difficult as there won't be any preexisting ideas by the audience.


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

I relate to the audience, first in the fact that we are commonly interested in chemical engineering, and second in the fact that we are both concerned with evaluating the best method for energy extraction. I will use these values to explain why the author's emphasis or ignorance of a certain aspect of the argument plays on these values and how this results in an effective or ineffective persuasion.


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

I will use the concepts of rhetorical situation and strategies like author, context, ethos, logos, etc., to organize the us of such concepts and how they result in an effective or ineffective argument. If I can organize these topics into familiar essay format by bringing forth evidence and explaining its use, then the audience will relate and understand to the message I am communicating.


Refection: I think I put a solid amount of time and effort into this analysis. I read Carter and Ayra's posts for a reflection and I think I met and surpassed the mere length of an acceptable explanation for each question. I identified that the audience wants to know about how the author's argument is constructed rather than if the argument is valid, which they both seemed to touch on, yet not delve into completely like I think I did.

Cluster of "A Fracking Good Story"

The following blog post includes the cluster, or mind map as I like to call it, of my rhetorical analysis of "A Good Fracking Story," the article I have chosen as the basis of Project 2.

Screenshot taken by Wieder, Tobin. 10/17/2015 via Coggle.

I separated the elements of a rhetorical analysis into three sections: rhetorical strategies used, cultural values within, and the rhetorical situation. With each, I made a branch for any example I could think of for each element of the rhetoric and explained further how it effected the argument being made. I hope you enjoy my mind map which you can find here.

Analysis of Rhetorical Strategies in "A Fracking Good Story"

In the following blog post I will analyze the rhetorical strategies in the article I selected for Project 2.

Nguyen, Marie-Lan. "A marble bust of Aristotle" 11/11/2006 via Google. Public Domain License

Appeals to Credibility or Character

Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Credibility and Character (Ethos)" on page 182 can you recognize in your text?

References to credible sources, word choice, acknowledgement of counterarguments and refutations, and appeal to the audience's values and beliefs are used in the text.

How and why would the author(s) use these strategies?

Each of these is used to build the credibility of the author. Reference to outside sources enhances the believability of the information being conveyed. Word choice like "dramatic" and "impressive" referring to the outside information brought up is used to emphasize the significance of the claims the author is providing. The acknowledgment of counterarguments is used to combat any perception of bias. The entire article is written to appeal to the audience's values so they can be swayed in the author's favor.

How do these strategies affect the audience’s perception of the author's/authors' credibility and character?

The use of outside sources and acknowledgement of outside sources enhance his credibility as someone who has researched this topic thoroughly. The word choice used makes it almost too obvious that the author is doing the most to try to convince the reader of his argument so it makes him less credible in that sense.

How does the use of these strategies impact the effectiveness of the text’s overall message?

The use of these strategies are essential to the effectiveness of the text's message. They support and show the significance of the claims of the article and provide the audience with ethos, which is a trust in the knowledge of the author and therefore trust in how he has communicated his ideas.

Does/do the author(s) seem to have any biases or assumptions that might impact their credibility?

The article is obviously supporting the use of fracking and the presentation of information that only supports the argument indicates that the author is somewhat biased toward the industry.


Appeals to Emotion

Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Emotion (Pathos)" on pages 182-3 can you recognize in your text?

None of the items on the list appear in the text in a way to evoke an emotional response.

What emotional responses is the author attempting to create?

The lack of tools to create an emotional response is conducted so that the article is viewed professionally. The creation of an emotional response would take away from the desired concreteness in the communication of the author's article, therefore the emotional response the author attempts is a lack thereof. 

What is the actual result?

The result in the lack of use of strategies to create emotion in the reader does what is was intended to do, which is make the reader view the article professionally so that they feel the importance in the information being provided.

Are these emotions effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

Emotions are ineffective for this audience and rhetoric situation because of the basis of this argument on a logical presentation of evidence. If emotion is created, then the article would not be taken as seriously.

How do these emotional appeals affect the credibility of the author(s) or the logic of the text?
The lack of emotional appeal enhances the credibility of the author and the logic of the text because it makes the author's argument more professional and less biased. The reader is presented with strictly facts and their explanation to support a claim, which is what a persuasive article on a professional topic ought to do.


Appeal to Logic

Which items on the bulleted list of "Appeals to Logic or Rational Decision Making (Logos)" on page 183 can you recognize in your text?

Historical records and statistics, expert opinions, and an effective organization of ideas are present in the text as a means of appealing to logic.

What response is the author attempting to create by employing these strategies?

The author uses historical records and statistics as well as expert opinions to show that his argument is based on and supported by factual evidence. The author seeks to make the information appear sound and believable. The effective sequencing of ideas, by first presenting what fracking has already helped with and then explaining why other methods have not helped makes the argument easy to follow and answers the questions that the reader would have in the sequence that they would have them.

What is the actual result?

The result is a logical communication of why fracking is the most beneficial energy source and the facts to support it. The audience is presented with claims and supporting evidence in an order that makes sense, allowing for an effective persuasion to the argument of the author.

Are these strategies effective or ineffective for this particular audience and rhetorical situation?

These strategies are effective for this rhetorical situation and audience. The topic is serious so the best way to communicate the benefits of fracking is by an emphasized use of logos, which is present in the text.


Reflection

Reading Ayra and Savannah's analysis of rhetorical strategies made me believe that I put an assuringly sufficient amount of effort in developing my own analysis. My responses were visually longer and contained a bit more evidence to support my thoughts than the two, but this is not to take away from the level of their analysis. Their's, like mine, has less to say on pathos due to the common scientific/professional nature of our topics, however their similar development of ethos and logos showed me that I am on the right track.

Analyzing Message in "A Fracking Good Story"

In the following blog post I will analyze the message in my chosen text, "A Fracking Good Story," through responses to specific questions.

Arvanitakis, Giannis. "Power transfer" 5/23/2014 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License

Out of all the bullet points listed for "Message and Purpose" on page 181, which two or three seem most relevant to the goals of your text's author/s? Why?

• persuade an audience of something
• express an idea or opinion
• move the readers to feel a certain way

The whole purpose of the article is to show how fracking is the most efficient energy source to combat climate change and convince the reader that they should support its use.

Which bullet points do not seem relevant to the goals of your text's author/s? Why not?

• respond to a particular occasion or text
• reflect on a topic
• advocate for change
• analyze, synthesize, or interpret

The fracking controversy can't be traced to a specific event or text, so that bullet point is irrelevant. The author doesn't reflect or analyze the fracking industry, he presents an argument instead. As far as advocating for change, the fracking industry is already established so he is doing the opposite, he is speaking out against the possibility of change.

Are there nuances and layers to the message the author(s)/speaker(s) is/are trying to get across? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

The message is pretty straightforward: fracking is benefiting the United States and should therefore continue to be used, however references to the failed policies of renewable energy and taxes enacted in Europe suggest that the author is also aiming to convince Americans, and perhaps anyone who reads the article, that those policies should not be attempted elsewhere.

Analyzing My Own Assumptions

This blog post includes my analysis on my own values and beliefs with respect to the culture of my chosen article, "A Fracking Good Story." I will respond to specific questions regarding my assumptions on the topic I have chosen.

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. "Satellite View of the Americas on Earth Day"
4/22/2014 via Flickr. Attribution License

1. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do you share with the society or culture in which the text was written? Why have they endured?

I support all of the values that the text relies on in its argument. I support the push to produce energy in the most environmentally friendly way possible because of my awareness of the existence of climate change, which is cited throughout the text, and my corresponding moral responsibility to do what is best for the future generations. I also agree that the institutions responsible for making these large scale decisions on energy production ought to do what is in the best interest of the United States, financially, because I am personally affected by the economic stability of my country.


2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do you not share? Why not?

I don't disagree with any of the major values or beliefs that are portrayed in this text. The article is meant to appeal to someone with the best interest of the environment and financial stability of the United States in mind, which applies to me and pretty much any US citizen, so there is a reason that my values correlate with the text's.


3/4. If the text is written in a culture distant or different from your own, what social values, beliefs, etc., connect to or reflect our own culture? What social values, beliefs, etc., can we not see in our own culture? If the text is written in our culture but in a different historical time, how have the social values, beliefs, etc., developed or changed over time?

The text is written in the same culture as my own, as I am an American citizen in a time period only three years in the future where climate change and fracking are still prevalent issues. No further major development have been made in the fracking controversy that change the significance of the article, therefore the values and beliefs are consistent.



Reflection: I read Ayra and Kyle's posts for this reflection and they both answered in similarly concise  explanations and this may be because their articles focus on the same controversy: animal testing. I think my analysis was a little more thorough in explaining my answers, however my article is different than theirs so there may have been more to discuss. Either way, this reflection assured me that I have thoroughly picked apart the values of myself and their relation to the text's.

Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

This blog post includes my responses to specific questions about the cultural setting of my chosen article for Project 2.

Identifying the cultural setting is the obvious first step. This article was originally published on September 12, 2012. The medium that first published the article was Project Syndicate which is based in Prague, Czech Republic, where the author was living at the time.

The author of the article, Bjørn Lomborg, is originally from Denmark but has studied and worked in the United States.

The article is written using information from the US switch to natural gas in the last decade to discuss how the industry should be handled in the US in the present day.

Bodin, Ulf. "Bench" 9/9/2013 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License

1. What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

It is the common goal of human society to do what is best for the environment and world in general so that future generations can live in more prosperity.

The Kyoto Protocol is a "law" that serves importance in the text. It refers to the 2005 international treaty that devotes nations to reduce greenhouse gases due to the recognized existence of climate change and the fact that carbon dioxide emissions have caused it. It's a law that enforces the already accepted responsibility of humans to find a way to reduce the damages done to the environment already.

Another norm that most may not like to accept is the unspoken rule that nothing will get done until if it is not cost efficient. No institution is willing to enact a policy if they do not have the money for it.

2. Does the text address these cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly or indirectly?

The text doesn't address the values directly, however every point made in the article is based on its support of the cultural beliefs above. All of the supporting arguments state the cost efficient or emission reducing effects of fracking without needing to explain why those effects are good things. The Kyoto Protocol is mentioned in the article but it's not explicitly pointed out as relating to a value or belief, rather as an event. 

3. What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?

The whole structure of the article is based on these cultural values. The author welcomes the commitment to using energy that is environmentally friendly as every one of his environmentally focused points on emission reduction is mentioned because it supports this effort to find green energy. Each of the financial claims made in the text rely on the universal principle that supports doing what will cost the least amount of money.

Cultural Analysis of "A Fracking Good Story"

In this blog post, I will conduct a cultural analysis on the article "A Fracking Good Story."

The Pinedale Field office of the BLM. "A natural gas drilling rig on the Pinedale Anticline, just west of Wyoming's Wind River Range" 1/14/2007 via Google. Public Domain License

The keywords (phrases) I selected from the article are climate change, carbon emissions, and cost. These words and phrases are repeated throughout the article and serve as the basis for the argument that the author is making supporting the fracking industry.

A working thesis statement for this article would be something like: the environmental and economic effects of the recent transition to natural gas as a primary energy source in the US has revealed that fracking is the most practical and cost efficient way to reduce carbon emissions and therefore combat the effects of climate change.

Free write:

 The concept of climate change is becoming accepted and feared by scientists and the general population more and more as time passes, so the constant mention of the benefits of fracking with respect to how they will go against climate change make them seem significantly more valuable and make fracking sound like the best option moving forward.

Among those who accept climate change as a reality, it is generally known that carbon dioxide emissions from cars, factories, and power plants is a huge cause of climate change and the destruction of the atmosphere, so the numerous times that fracking is claimed to have reduced carbon emissions makes the reader believe in the process more as an environmentally healthier option for an energy source.

The repetition of "cost" and "price" are used so frequently in the article because it is known that money rules the world so when fracking is claimed to cost less than different energy production methods, the reader is more likely to support the author's argument because they will view fracking as a process that will benefit the economy of the US and their own finances as well.

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

This blog post will include my analysis of the rhetoric used in three sources of opinionated speech regarding the controversy of fracking.

JohnDiew0107. "Public Speaking" 7/12/2006 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License

1. GASLAND – FRACKING HELL: The Truth Behind HydroFracking / Hormone-Disrupting Chemicals Linked to Fracking (Nat Geo) – True Democracy Party

Author- The specific person responsible for composing this article is unknown, referred to as "Admin" at the beginning of the article, which means that whoever is in control of the website is the author. The article was posted on truedemocracyparty.net which according the website, is some sort of radical political faction that advocates for "the voice of the American people" by criticizing current institutions of health and industry in the US.

Audience- The author of this article is speaking to the general American public, specifically anyone who can vote in an election.The article is designed to reveal the truths about the fracking industry to anyone who comes across the article by Google search so that they are motivated to use their right as a citizen and advocate and vote for the halting of fracking in the US.

Context- The article was posted in December of 2013 so it is mostly relevant to the issue of fracking today. The article was posted on the website for the True Democracy Party, which is a site containing several other articles that criticize American institutions to "reveal the truth" to all citizens. The article uses the anti-fracking message of the 2010 documentary Gasland to initiate the disapproval of the industry's prevalence in the US. Several suggested articles at the bottom of the page also use the movie title in their headlines.


2. How Fracking Is Fueling A Power Shift From Coal To Gas

Author- The speaker in the broadcast is Marie Cusick, a reporter for National Public Radio, who has been focused on natural gas production since the 2011 boom. In 2014 she received a national Edward R. Murrow award for her coverage of the Pennsylvania natural gas industry.

Audience- The broadcast/article targets anyone who would like to know more about the natural gas industry, or the energy industry in the United States as a whole. NPR is not certainly politically biased, so the target audience does not exclude a political faction. The transition from coal to natural gas as an energy source and the benefits that go along with it are mostly discussed, so the article assumes that the audience is concerned with the environmental and economic sustainability of energy production.

Context- The broadcast was aired in June of 2015, making it very relevant to the current status of natural gas production. Posted by NPR, the story is not obviously biased based on political ideology however the article is mostly supporting the transition to natural gas so there is some bias. Environmental concerns with respect to climate change are brought forth, which is a very prevalent issue in current society. The link to the broadcast contains advertisements for natural gas industries before and beside the video, so NPR clearly has affiliation and a reason to portray the increase in natural gas production in a positive way.


3. A Fracking Good Story

Author- The author of this article is Bjørn Lomborg, a professor at the Copenhagen Business School and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in the US, a research institute focused on environmental economics. He is known for his three books that show skepticism for the threat of major environmental issues. The author is clearly one with bias as he is known for his downplay of environmental concerns but his credentials are valid in environmental economics so he is credible in that aspect.

Audience- The audience is anyone who would like to know more about energy production in the United States, however the article targets the general population (anyone who comes across the article) so that they can be informed of the economic and environmental benefits that fracking has brought in the past decade.

Context- The article was first published in September 2012 by Project Syndicate (membership required to view article), a news service that provides commentary on global issues. The article is a few years behind however its message and supporting evidence is still relevant to the current state of the controversy of fracking. The article on Slate is surrounded by suggested news articles on a wide variety of topics but none that relate to fracking.



Reflection- I read Carter and Jessica's blog posts for this reflection and I think my analysis was very well done. I think I spent a solid amount of time identifying the rhetorical situation and the effect each aspect had on the argument. Seeing how they identified the most rhetoric article as the one with the most solid argument helped me realize the focus of this project and narrow down my sources to the one that supports their position the best.

Developing a Research Question

This post includes a proposal of research questions pertaining to my field of study which is Chemical Engineering.

Oberazzi. "Questions" 12/9/2006 via Flickr. Attribution-NonCommercial License.

In Project 1, I investigated the controversy of fracking. The research I did allowed me to delve into several different aspects of the debate including ethics, economics, and even politics. The following research questions touch on these points of view on the fracking controversy.

1. How are chemical engineers and other scientists involved in the legislative process? How do they communicate their findings to politicians?

A common theme in the articles I read was that scientists still struggle with conveying their findings to politicians who can actually impose their policy. I'm interested in the process of how they communicate the importance of their findings, particularly if their are any complications.

2. To what extent is the support of fracking based on the economic advantages of the process? What is an advantage and what is made to look like an advantage?

I found that the financial benefits were a large part of the pro-fracking argument, so I'm interested in what their major claims are and what is possibly misconstrued as an economic advantage to help defend the process' good standing.

3. How has the fracking controversy been pushed forward by the use of emotion?

The fracking debate is a very important issue for those who have been affected by the process' operations. 'Gasland' was released which showed the personal stories of victims of groundwater contamination so I'm wondering how this movie and other movements that use emotion have played a part in the anti-fracking movement.