I have found that using a combination of Casual and Evaluative arguments will best benefit my project. I will need to both introduce the situation and it's importance while still persuading my audience that addressing climate change results in the best possible outcome. Thus I will use the elements of a casual argument to present all of the necessary information and elements of the evaluative argument to analyze this context to prove my purpose.
I will not be choosing position, refutation, or proposal. I almost went toward position, however I found that I did not want to spend time addressing the con of the situation. I want to spend my time showing the audience why the Pope speaking can result in positive benefits, which will morph into the heart of the issue of why addressing climate change will result in positive benefits. Refutation is irrelevant as I will not be refuting what the Pope said or the existence of climate change and I am unable to submit a proposed solution for such a monumental international issue such as climate change. I might have a much more defined proposal after years of studying environmental science, but as I am very new to the field and have years of experience ahead of me, suggesting a solution to an international issue is not something I am yet qualified for.
 |
| skeeze "world" accessed via Pixabay Uploaded October 2015 CC0 Public Domain |
I think the ones you chose will be the most beneficial for your argument. I didn't choose the causal argument but it would be interesting to see how it would work. It's interesting that you almost did position because that's what I did. Good luck!
ReplyDeleteIt look like you really thought about the types of arguments because you chose good ones. I am considering refutation and how you wrote about how it would not work for you made me realize how it is probably the opposite for me and will likely end up being the one I choose.
ReplyDelete