 |
| Unknown. "Eaton’s employees in auditorium at a War Bond Rally, 1943 (Toronto, Canada)" 1943. Public Domain |
I am writing for students in the medical field and patients in physical therapy that are interested in learning more about the controversy on electrical stimulation in physical therapy. The audience believes in beneficial uses of their money, highly qualified therapists performing the treatment, and the well being of the patients being performed on.
What position might they take on this issue? How will I need to respond to this?
They will most likely see the benefits of using e-stim but also see circumstances in which other methods would outweigh it due to outside factors such as cost and qualifications. I will need to respond to this by statistically showing how effective e-stim is and that because of this those factors should be reconsidered.
What will they want to know?
They will want to know the reasons behind the setbacks and how we can overcome them to make the treatment more useful as a whole.
How might they react to my argument?
They will most likely agree. I will provide the evidence used in the text and reiterate the statements the author makes to show the reasons why they should agree.
Are there specific words, ideas, or modes of presentation that will help me relate to them in this way?
I can use the idea of the well being of the patient being the most important factor and that the outlying issues with the treatment should not play as big of a role as people have been making it.
Reflection
I analyzed Morgan's and Jayni's posts. Both of my peers had very specific audiences with a lot of knowledge behind the topics they're discussing. Morgan predicted her audience to react with sympathy and agree with her argument because her argument is about physical punishment in children. I found this interesting because I felt that every audience would feel sympathetic about this.
Jay's audience is specifically chemical engineering students. She found that her audience would agree with her argument if she used facts and science to prove her argument. After reviewing my peers posts I found that my audience is a little more broad and the information I will supply contains different types of values and beliefs that varies between my audiences.
Reflection
I analyzed Morgan's and Jayni's posts. Both of my peers had very specific audiences with a lot of knowledge behind the topics they're discussing. Morgan predicted her audience to react with sympathy and agree with her argument because her argument is about physical punishment in children. I found this interesting because I felt that every audience would feel sympathetic about this.
Jay's audience is specifically chemical engineering students. She found that her audience would agree with her argument if she used facts and science to prove her argument. After reviewing my peers posts I found that my audience is a little more broad and the information I will supply contains different types of values and beliefs that varies between my audiences.
I find we used very different approaches in this blog post. I answered the questions focusing mostly on the idea of the project being intended for people interested in our chosen fields, but unsure of how an argument is constructed in that field. Your answers were very helpful on the argumentative point, the point that I am struggling most in my own writing process with this project.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job of analyzing your audience. Because we are writing for other students in our field, I don't know if anyone has a topic that students would strongly oppose. Just as a heads up, I think you skipped the fifth question that is listed on page 41. I don't want you to miss any points for that.
ReplyDeleteOur two topics and rhetorical approaches are not at all similar. Your topic however seems very interesting and I would like to hear more about it in the future. Your audience is prominently medical students while mine is a majority of engineering students and people with no knowledge of geoengineering. Your aim towards readers involves explaining setbacks and how improvement is possible while my aim is along the lines of trying to explain to readers why geoengineering is beneficial to solving the planet's global warming issue. Great job!
ReplyDeleteI think you did a good job analyzing your audience. I feel like we very similarly answered the questions. Since we are writing for students in our field, they have about the same information we know or less so they may not have the biggest say in the argument. I also agree with your specific words as it deals more with patients than the treatment aspect.
ReplyDelete