Analyzing Purpose

In the following post, I will answer a series of questions that analyze the purpose of my argument.

Sawyers, Seth. "Purpose." 05/14/2009 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1.Free write: I want my readers to want to fight for the right of scientists to research freely. I want them to realize that there is such potential behind the continuation of this research and there is a world of opportunity that has yet to be explored. The opposition has no true basis except an irrelevant ethics argument that can be easily deconstructed if you stress the points of innovation and success in science. Science shouldn't be halted because some people have a hard time accepting the way that science develops and the material that is being used will eventually help humankind as a whole. This is a worldwide issue, so I want my audience to see how the argument is being discussed worldwide.

2.Plausible:

• Audience will want to be alert and informed on the matter
• Audience might take an active role in this worldwide argument
• Audience will support my view
• Audience will be concerned about this issue

Not plausible:

• Audience will disagree and debunk my argument
• Audience will learn nothing from my argument
• Audience will think my argument is boring or pointless

3. Effects:

• Audience alertness may cause a more active and correct public argument and hopefully make right any public misconceptions
• The readers having an active role in the worldwide argument will hopefully direct the argument to have less bans or restrictions on genome editing through public opinion
• Supporting my view means supporting the continuation of genome editing, which in turn makes the world better
• Audience concern means greater audience awareness on the topic

4. Audiences: Enthusiastic young people that can steer public opinion collectively will be very useful and would be the most ideal audience. Those going into science would be even better because they can speak on the matter or at least be more properly informed on the matter. They are the ones who can speak to the people who control the rules about human genome editing, and hopefully sway the legislators to be less strict.