Considering Types

In the following blog post I will be analyzing my potential use of the 5 basic types of public argument described in Writing Public Lives. I will be evaluating the usefulness of each type to me and which I might write in.

The first argument type which would be good for me to write in would be Causal. This type of argument, which "introduces your audience to the cause of a specific problem, would be a good choice for me because it allows me to introduce the overarching fault in funding education, then pin it on something that my audience can hold responsible. This opens to door to my audience seeing the ways in which they can spark change in the system.

The second argument type that I'm considering is the Refutation argument. This is another form of argument that points my audience toward opposing what I oppose. In the particular context of school funding, the refutation is a particularly effective argument because it shows the harmful effect of a specific thing. This allows me to point out conservative legislation as a harmful entity which puts students at a disadvantage, sometimes even in relation to race.

Position argument isn't good for my topic because it focuses on something that is good, when I want to focus on something that is flawed. Evaluative is a similar situation, which focuses on the successfulness of a particular policy. Proposal is a possibility, but would be difficult for my specific topic because it had been at such a standstill for so long.

Antoinette, "She contemplated the meaning of life"
5/2/09 via Flickr.com

REFLECTION

I read the Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types posts of Chelsea and found that she and I had a very similar audience and possible arguments. She and I are both writing for an audience that knows little about the topic, but is aware that it is an issue and want to know more about it. Her creative approaches to genre made me think that there is more than one way to reach my audience.

I also read Sam's Rhetorical Action Plan and Considering Types post. They were both extremely insightful and different than any other arguments I've read about. Her audience is much more technical than mine and her stance on her intended argument looked more at supporting her stance rather than looking for things to blame and opposition to criticize. It showed me that there was a lot more diverse ways to approach the construction of arguments.