 |
| Rutter, Richard. "Lightbulb" 9/8/2008 via Flickr. Attribution License |
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.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment