Rhetorical Situation As Lb Lm

Who?

  • Suzanne LaBarre-Popular Science, Online Director of Content at Popular Science
  • Visitors of PopularScience.com
  • Viewers are most likely people who find an interest in science and have a higher level of education or reading comprehension.

What/How?

  • Implied thesis: "Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off."
  • The author presents a lot of information regarding the studies that supported why they wanted to diminish their own comment sections on their website.
  • Very little headings, only one that reiterates the largest point of the article stating that they do not want minority groups to have the power to skew the readers opinion of an article.
  • The argument relies on credible sources from UW Madison professors and his study supporting their argument.
  • The author is credible because she obviously works for Popular Science and has the title of the content director at the company.
  • The tone seems to be very serious and scholarly since they are talking about a serious problem they are having and bring up good points in argument.
  • Words that stick out are "intellectual debate", "polarized", these words show that the author's tone is meant to have an intellectual discussion about what they are doing and also show that the audience must be somewhat of an intellectual group.
  • Not many design elements were used making the article seem formal.

When and Where?

  • The text was published on September 24, 2013
  • The domain of the website is .com which usually is not a great source of credibility although Popular Science is very well known and has been around for 141 years.

Why

  • The authors purpose was to inform the readers of their website about the dismissal of comment sections on their articles.
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License