Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

In this post, I will be rhetorically analyzing three different sources that are acts of opinionated speech about engineering.

Micky Aldridge. "Question Mark Cloud." June 10 2003 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. The Ethics of Designer Babies

Author

The author of this article is Tia Ghose. She is a a well-written journalist for Wired, a magazine that provides updates on the latest technology and scientific advancements. In addition, she is a investigative reporter and researcher for the Center for Investigative Reporting. Tia Ghose reports on scientific topics and debates and has interest in science.

Audience 

The primary audience is adults because the article discusses the ethics of designing a baby. More specifically, the audience could be married couples or couples who want to have children. In addition, this article is posted on the Huffington Post; therefore, the audience is anyone who reads the news. This article assumes the audience cares about their children's welfare and have in interest in customizing their baby.

Context

This article was published in March of 2014, therefore the information is current and relevant. In addition, the information was posted on an accredited news source. Because of this, the article is credible and reliable. It was posted via LifeScience. There are videos included in the article about genetically designed animals. In addition, there are other related articles included at the end of the post.

2. Bringing up Designer Babies

Author 

The author is Ana Harris. She is from Texas and says she is a feminist in her bio. Therefore, she advocates women's rights and probably other ethical rights. She is a senior at Wellesley College studying philosophy; she works as a journalist for hobby rather than a career. However, her article appears on the Huffington Post and is therefore credible.

Audience

The audience is anyone who is interested in stem cell research, gene alteration or even people who want to have kids. This article discusses "designing" a baby and the dangers involved with genetic changing. This article assumes the audience is concerned with the ethics of genetic engineering and has an interest in customizing their children.

Context 

This article was posted May 2015 and is therefore up to date and contains relevant information. It appears in the Huffington Post as an opinion article; therefore, it is credible but contains bias. This article is presented as a an argument; the author begins with an anecdote and then proceeds to present and support her argument throughout. There are related articles included at the bottom of the pages and a few ads surrounding the text.

3. Genetically Engineered Babies?

Author 

The author of this article is Wynne Parry. She has various articles in scientific journals like Scientific American and Live Science. In addition, she reports on biological sciences and a few other scientific topics. She graduated from Columbia University and currently writes about genetics, health and our bodies. Her article appears on the Huffington Post and is therefore credible.

Audience

Just like the other two articles, the audience is adults interested in having kids or even the ethics of designing babies. The article assumes the audience has heard of this new technology because it discusses the ethics of gene altering and gene selecting. However, this article is appropriate for any audience if they are interested in learning about this controversy.

Context

This article was posted February 2013. This is not as recent as the first two articles; however, it is still pretty recent and relevant. Again, it was published in the Huffington Post and is therefore credible. There are related links at the end and ads surrounding the text. The author presents her information with facts and thoroughly explains the ethics involved in designing a baby.


Reflection:

Morgan's post had a thorough analysis of her sources. They were all very recent and had credible authors. In addition, I like how she had articles for three different controversies within her discipline; therefore, she gave herself a lot of options to choose from. After reading her analysis, I realized I could find more information about the authors of my sources. Nick's analysis, just like Morgan's, was thorough. In addition, he found very credible sources. I like how he has similar research ideas as me because we are both in engineering. After reading his analysis, I realized I could develop my analysis more. Finally, I like that Nick has a source with a bigger issue involved (first amendment rights) rather than a specific event.