A 4 page paper which examines an argumentative article, discussing how it is an effective argument. The article examined is “Why We Shouldn’t Go to Mars” by Gregg Easterbrook. No additional sources cited.
medical research, dietary concerns, and arguments for and against almost anything one can imagine. Such arguments can be convincing as well as controversial. But, they can also be confusing and
vague. In order to know why we feel an article or argument is convincing it is often necessary to break the argument down into rhetorical elements. The following paper examines
"Why We Shouldnt Go to Mars" by Gregg Easterbrook, as appeared in the January 26, 2004 issue of Time Magazine, and analyzes why it is a convincing argument. It
should be noted that the essay cites from pages of faxes (concerning rhetorical analyses) sent by the student and this source is unknown and thus is not included in a
bibliography. Analysis Exigence: The exigence, the real issue, is that the government is planning on spending a great deal of energy and money on the exploration of Mars.
This is an issue that affects everyone in the nation for it involves the use of precious funds. Reader/Audience: The audience of this particular article is perhaps anyone in
the nation who pays taxes and cares about how the money in the United States is spent. This applies to almost every single adult in the nation and it is
something that affects everyone in the nation. Constraints: One of the most prominent constraints of this issue revolves around mankinds inherent need to discover and explore. The author addresses
this by beginning the article with a discussion of Lewis and Clarke. He makes it quite clear that he accepts and even respects this inherent need. Author: The information
on the author is very slight and indicates that he is a fellow at the Brookings Institute and that he has authored a book. This, however, is not important, for