Rhetorical Analysis of Project 3

Understanding a project is very important, duh. If you don't understand what the project is asking of you and how to make the project, you won't get a good grade on it and it wo;t turn out very well. Here is my interpretation of the assignment.

Author:
For Project three I will try to draw on my interests in my maor chemical engineering and my interest of Nuclear Power options. I have read many articles on a certain type of nuclear power, Thorium salt, and seen many videos on it.

I don't think there is much of an opinion on Thorium based nuclear power from my family. Being raised in the middle class showed my the importance of electricity in everyday life. Being an american is how I have grown to need electricity and finding a clean source is seen as very important.

 

Audience:

I am thinking about my audience as people who don't know much about Thorium power and are looking for safe energy options. I am going to assume that the audience is slightly against nuclear power in general. They might react favorablly on the idea or ignore it. I am going to relate to the audience by talking about personal energy consumption and the effects it has.

 Purpose/Message
I want the audience to be more open-minded about nuclear energy and the positive effects it could have on society. I am not trying to force them to believe in nuclear energy but I want them to be informed. Once all my research is done I will need to explain the theory and what has been done already. I will also have to tell the audience what some opponents of the issue think.

Context: What Genre?
I will be writting in the genre of a standard College Essay. I expect the audience to understand some of the concepts but will try and use footnotes for some. I have written many college essays. I feel very comfortable with Standard College Essay genre. The two most effective conventions in this genre are citing sources and the use of words only, no pictures.
 Context: When?
Some historical events that might affect the audience's opinion are the Three Mile Island incident, the Fukushima-Diachii meltdown, and Chernobyl. There are many institutions talking about this and some governments have given the green light for research on the subject. The three major counter-arguements are: Nuclear energy is dangerous, the production of nuclear waste is bad for the earth, and nuclear energy is shifting more towards fusion instead of fission.