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.