Rhetorical Situation Paris

Author: Suzanne LaBarre
The readers might already know the authors credentials such as their education or their profession. This information my influence the reader to think highly of the author. Or on the other hand if the author is not very well known, the reader my judge the author's work more harshly.
The intended audience could be well educated people who like to engage in scientific conversations. Another intended audience could be those that engage in conversations on articles but don't necessarily understand the content. The intended audience's background and demographics could be college level or older people that value education. They might assume that their viewpoints aren't important to the author, but the author has clearly stated that their comments are important/thought provoking and they can reach the author through other social media sites.

What and How
The article contains a implied thesis, which is "Comments can be bad for science." The author presents background information by adding links to examples of comments that "diminish our ability to do the latter". There are no headings or different sections but the article is organized. The author explains why they are shutting off comments and descriptions of the negative effects of troll comments. The evidence relies on comments left by those who do not care to share their opinion, only those who want to be sarcastic or disruptive. The text establishes the author's credibility at the bottom of the page and also includes the author's email address. The tone that I pick up on in this article is scholarly and serious. Words such as "trolls" or "spambots" stand out to me. They suggest that a certain level of education is expected from the author and that the intended audience are those with some education. The format of the article seems technical because a message is meant to be sent by the author and let the readers understand why the comments are being shut off. The article uses a picture of what seems to be a enhanced picture of some kind of cell or organism. The author does cite some sources at the bottom of the article. She simply just lists the websites she used as her sources.

When and Where
The text was published on September 24th, 2013. The difference that might make to the audience is it gives them an idea of how long comments have been shut off. The domain of the article is .com. This could suggest that the article has a very diverse group of people reading the articles and could be a popular site. This could also suggest that those endorsing the article are also using the site for advertisement. Sometimes .com could mean that the author could not be credible but in this case that author does seem very credible, especially since she adds her email address at the bottom.

The author's purpose and motivation is to education the visitors of the website on why comments have been shut off. The commenters who were trolling or leaving uneducated comments were the catalysts that prompted the author to write this article. This topic is important because it is only fair to all of the commenters, serious or not, to understand why comments have been shut off. The larger consequences for the audience are that they will not be able to share their opinions as easily as before. However, they will be able to share their opinions through other social networks.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License