Kaileigh Kulp

WRIT 101 – Public Argument Reflection

11/11/21

o Your rhetorical choices

In this paper I decided that the argument strategy that would be the most
effective would be a heavy use of logos. The audience that I was writing for by
choosing the National Geographic likely meant that much of the audience that
would be reading my piece would already be somewhat aware of and agree
with the idea that pollution is contributing to climate change and have impacts
on both our health and the health of the planet. I appealed to logos by arguing
to the audience that they needed to be aware of the extent that microplastics
can harm us and the environment as I don’t think that people are taking it as
seriously as they should be. I presented this argument by first introducing the
topic and then launching into rhetorical questions to get readers thinking and
facts to show the extent of the issue. I also touched on pathos in the end of the
article in order to call readers to action by mentioning that action is important
with this issue as if nothing changes future generations will suffer.

o Medium

National Geographic has an array of mediums that they present to audiences;

however, I chose to present my argument in the form of an online news article.
I chose to do so as this seems to be one of the more common types of
presentation that National Geographic has. Their webpage has a very
recognizable layout and displays their logo prominently, so I did my best to
replicate that format in a word document layout by adding images and different
fonts as well as a similar title style.

o Style

The style of writing in National Geographic articles tends not to be written at a

super high level. Meaning that anyone who chooses to read the article will be
able to read it and doesn’t get too lost in specific scientific terminology but still
gains a good overview of the topic. I replicated this style by not using too many
unfamiliar scientific terms, and by defining the terms that I was using such that
the audience could follow along with especially the term ‘microplastic’ is it was
paramount to understanding the article.

o Argument

I argued that microplastics present an issue that may not be ignored and may
be larger that scientists had previously thought as more research is conducted.
 I also argued that impacts on health of both us and the environment is at risk
and that it will only continue to be at risk as existing plastics continue to
degrade and become microplastics. This argument thus even appeals to
people who may have already known about microplastics as the extent of the
impacts may be revealed since new research has been conducted lately. This
argument would also be effective in reaching an audience that may have never
heard about microplastics and instead would expose them to the issue and
spur thought surrounding the topic.

o Strategies

As I mentioned above, I used a mainly logos-based approach by including

research, statistics, images, and quotations from several researchers. I
focused on using evidence from peer-reviewed journals as it was some of the
best and most informative discussion of the topic that I found during my
research. In the end of the article, I called readers to action by using more of a
pathos-based argument by stating that future generations are in danger. Both
approaches and strategies may be appropriate and convincing to different
readers but as my target audience was a scientific website I mainly focused on
a logos-based argument as that is what I felt would best reach the audience
effectively.

o Evidence

I used evidence that microplastic pollution is similar to that of particulate

pollution and backed this claim with quotations from professionals. I also used
a statistic about the estimated number of microplastic particles that we each
ingest in a year. I included an infographic of the ways microplastics get into the
oceans as well. I also used several other quotes from peer-reviewed research
articles to present aspects of the argument such as impacts on both the human
body as well as the environment.

o Fallacies?
o Did you do so deliberately?
o Why did you make this choice?
o Propaganda?
o Did you do so deliberately?
o Why did you make this choice?

As I focused on a logos-based argument I did not feel that it would be

appropriate to include fallacies or propaganda as these tactics would be in
direct contrast to the type of argument I wanted to present.