Reflecting Back on My Rhetorical Analysis
The process of writing went overall very well, the assignment (though fairly tedious) wasn't too challenging. The strengths in my essay were employed through my method of analysis. I discovered that my introduction and conclusion were both fairly strong and skillfully composed. The only challenging aspect was reading and interpreting the editorial I was analyzing. I had to do this very throughly to fully understand the article. If I were to change anything I would have listened a little more to those in my writing group.
Prewriting Steps
Here is another page from my day book of the prewriting stages for the Editorial Argumentative Analysis (rhetorical analysis). This picture also includes the stages of getting feedback from my audience and different drawings that helped continue my writing process.
editorial_analysis_-_rough_draft.docx | |
File Size: | 16 kb |
File Type: | docx |
Final Draft of Rhetorical Analysis
Editorial Analysis
What is Global Warming? Global Warming is described as an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. Usually it is attributed to the increase in levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. An Editorial for the Wall Street Journal examines Global Warming and if it really is pertinent to today’s society.
The Editor’s position on the argument can easily be summarized:
“There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world. Even if one accepts the inflated climate
forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”
The editorial for the Wall Street Journal uses logic to support its position in the debate over global warming. The Editor states in his opening sentence that his article is signed by 16 scientists. This statement causes one to think that the argument is well supported by intelligent and informed individuals. He presents other reputable sources, yet tears them apart and makes them look like uninformed bigots. When the Editor portrays the American Physical Society (APS) he states, “In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” He also depicts the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the same manner. The Editor exclaims, “Their computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.” He’s using these statistics and his presentation of reputable sources to legitimize his own argument.
This editorial for the Wall Street Journal uses emotions indirectly. Through the authors depiction of certain aspects of his argument he employs emotions. The editor mentions “furtive young scientists afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted” to utilize our emotions. We cannot help but feel bad for the young scientists who are fearful to speak up in regards to their own personal opinions of Global Warming. He furthers his argument by giving an example of a Russian Scientist who killed those who didn’t agree with him. Though the author of this editorial doesn’t write with passionate words, he employs words that play on our own personal emotions to better support his argument.
Through his use of logic and emotions, the author of this editorial for the Wall Street Journal makes his argument look ethical. He brought up the opposition and discussed it fairly thoroughly throughout the entire article. Hispresentation of the opposition was not fair in that he tore them down and made them look as if they were unintelligent and pompous bigots. Also the author assumes that the reader has some understanding of chemistry and the working of atmospheric particles. If the reader doesn’t have such understanding some key elements of the article would be lost on them.
Is the argument in the editorial convincing? By the time one finishes reading this editorial they cannot help but be convinced. The logical information portrayed gives the reader facts and makes them feel as if the editor knows what he’s talking about. After reading this editorial I could not help but feel as if Global Warming was a scam and that it was not even pertinent to our modern society. I think the weak aspect of this editorial lies in its lack of employment of emotions. Emotions are used, but this editorial lacks passionate words and makes the reader feel as if the editor is a man sitting behind a desk bored with the topic at hand. If the editor appeared more passionate in some way, shape or form the reader might be more inclined to finish reading the article or remembering the presented information at a later date.
I agree with the writer of this Editorial. It appears to me that Global Warming is not as pertinent and impending as the scientists originally led us all to believe. Do I believe that things should be more environmentally friendly? Of course I think we should do everything we can to prevent waste and preserve our atmosphere in any way possible. Global warming is not as relevant and complete destruction of the atmosphere is not as imminent as scientists originally led individuals around the world to believe; I attempted in this essay to expound the views of Global Warming through examination of the Editorial presented in the Wall Street Journal.
What is Global Warming? Global Warming is described as an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. Usually it is attributed to the increase in levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. An Editorial for the Wall Street Journal examines Global Warming and if it really is pertinent to today’s society.
The Editor’s position on the argument can easily be summarized:
“There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world. Even if one accepts the inflated climate
forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”
The editorial for the Wall Street Journal uses logic to support its position in the debate over global warming. The Editor states in his opening sentence that his article is signed by 16 scientists. This statement causes one to think that the argument is well supported by intelligent and informed individuals. He presents other reputable sources, yet tears them apart and makes them look like uninformed bigots. When the Editor portrays the American Physical Society (APS) he states, “In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” He also depicts the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the same manner. The Editor exclaims, “Their computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.” He’s using these statistics and his presentation of reputable sources to legitimize his own argument.
This editorial for the Wall Street Journal uses emotions indirectly. Through the authors depiction of certain aspects of his argument he employs emotions. The editor mentions “furtive young scientists afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted” to utilize our emotions. We cannot help but feel bad for the young scientists who are fearful to speak up in regards to their own personal opinions of Global Warming. He furthers his argument by giving an example of a Russian Scientist who killed those who didn’t agree with him. Though the author of this editorial doesn’t write with passionate words, he employs words that play on our own personal emotions to better support his argument.
Through his use of logic and emotions, the author of this editorial for the Wall Street Journal makes his argument look ethical. He brought up the opposition and discussed it fairly thoroughly throughout the entire article. Hispresentation of the opposition was not fair in that he tore them down and made them look as if they were unintelligent and pompous bigots. Also the author assumes that the reader has some understanding of chemistry and the working of atmospheric particles. If the reader doesn’t have such understanding some key elements of the article would be lost on them.
Is the argument in the editorial convincing? By the time one finishes reading this editorial they cannot help but be convinced. The logical information portrayed gives the reader facts and makes them feel as if the editor knows what he’s talking about. After reading this editorial I could not help but feel as if Global Warming was a scam and that it was not even pertinent to our modern society. I think the weak aspect of this editorial lies in its lack of employment of emotions. Emotions are used, but this editorial lacks passionate words and makes the reader feel as if the editor is a man sitting behind a desk bored with the topic at hand. If the editor appeared more passionate in some way, shape or form the reader might be more inclined to finish reading the article or remembering the presented information at a later date.
I agree with the writer of this Editorial. It appears to me that Global Warming is not as pertinent and impending as the scientists originally led us all to believe. Do I believe that things should be more environmentally friendly? Of course I think we should do everything we can to prevent waste and preserve our atmosphere in any way possible. Global warming is not as relevant and complete destruction of the atmosphere is not as imminent as scientists originally led individuals around the world to believe; I attempted in this essay to expound the views of Global Warming through examination of the Editorial presented in the Wall Street Journal.