Analyzing My Audience

In the following blog post I will be answering questions in order to analyze the audience of my rhetorical analysis. This is important because the rhetorical situation for my rhetorical analysis is going to be vastly different than the rhetorical situation from  the text I am analyzing.

Murch, Beatrice. "Audience for Richard Stallman's Talk at Teatro Alvear". 25 Aug. 2009. Public Domain.

I am writing for new students in my discipline along with my classmates/professor. It is important to keep in mind that my audience might not have a comprehensive knowledge of architecture competitions and how they relate to jobs in that field. They can however relate some of the topics such as payment and passion to their own profession, so the controversy isn't very difficult to understand.

My controversy doesn't really induce a side to take for anyone who isn't directly involved in the architecture world. I don't expect my audience to take any extreme side on the issue as it doesn't really affect anyone not in the architecture profession. Because the article presents a good argument towards continuing to allow competitions, I believe the audience will agree. 

My audience will want to know what exactly an architecture competition is, the pros/cons involved, and the pros/cons presented by the article. Also, more importantly, the audience would want to know what the context and the author of the article is and how that could strengthen/weaken her argument.

I can relate to the audience in presenting the details of my controversy in a way that they could understand both the rhetorical situation used along with the rhetorical strategies, so they could fully understand why I think my article presented a good argument. 

By referring to what we went over in class and presenting the strategies and situation of the rhetoric in my article, my audience can understand why the argument is presented in a successful manner. Additionally, if the audience understands what my controversy is about they can further understand why the article presents a good argument.

Reflection:

After reading Carter and Kyle's blog posts, I feel confident in my understanding of my audience and i can tell that they have a good understanding, too. Carter is siding with his argument although his argument presents an unpopular opinion, so that should be very interesting. Also, Kyle understands that people in his major (engineering) respect logic, similar to how I understand that architecture majors value images and graphic information.