Analysis of My Rhetorical Situation

Now that I've chosen my specific article, for my story, it's now time to analyze the individual pieces of my rhetorical situation that I will be writing. This blog will cover the three main pieces of a rhetorical situation: audience, purpose, and author.

Audience

The people who will be reading my controversy that I selected will be people who are genuinely interested in the veterinary science field as well as those who are interested in animal rights, specifically household pets. They would probably read many articles on other animal rights issues, but more specifically would read The Animals Voice site as well as The Scientist Magazine because of the focus on veterinary science and animal controversies. They might be watching various videos and documentaries on vaccinations in pets such as this one.

"The Scientist Magazine Logo" Oct 14, 2011 via Market Wired.

The audience would also be a wide range of people as far as economic class goes, but I would guess that there would be mostly women reading about this due to the ties that women often have with animals in media. It could also be people who are in the science field, people who believe in science rather than moral affiliations. They could value medicine and the veterinary field as well as valuing pets and animals in general. Some would value morality over science while others would value the opposite. Furthermore, these people would value the life of an animal and would want to protect their lives overall.

Purpose

I want to project the truth in all cases, to show as little amount of bias that I can so that the readers can formulate their own opinion about that they believe to be 'right'. I also want to give them a sense of passion where they will go out and talk about if they will follow the accepted number of vaccines or not. The audience may misunderstand that the debate is still going on and has been going for years. I want my readers to understand the good and the bad of each stakeholder, their opinions, and especially mention their biases towards the vaccinations. Having the setting in Stamford should show that the debate is happening all across America and that even in a smaller town, it is still prevalent. The time period for the overall debate reaches from 50 years ago to today, but the specific article I will be talking about happened in January of 2013, a more recent event. This should sow the audience the overall importance of the debate. It is difficult to grasp that this is only one event out of many and the fact that many people don't have an answer for what the right answer is in over vaccinating.

Author (Time to brag about myself)

Because I am actually studying to vaccinate pets myself as a veterinarian, I feel like I have extreme passion and interest for this specific event. I am excited to speak about it which I think will reflect in my writing, making the piece more interesting and overall a good QRG to read. I am also very passionate about animal rights, yet I still believe in the medical part of veterinary science so I think that I have a good almost middle ground stance so it will make the paper have as little amount of bias as possible. I own a pet myself so I also feel like I will be able to represent all stakeholders completely.