Comparative Analysis
Joel Spencer 3779350
Knowing and Knowledge Assessment 1 Comparative Analysis
This essay will be comparing and analysing the techniques used by two Melbourne based university lectures, Robert Manne and Patrick Stokes. Both dealing with the thematic subject of opinion.
Concerning Climate Change “Clear, Catastrophic threats, Manne opens the article with an anecdote, that a “part of the english syllabus [as a schoolboy] was “clear thinking”” (Manne 2011). This anecdote should set up a relevance and an accessibility to the reader drawing them in and sympathising with the argument that will be put forward. Almost a third of the article is dense with data. “1500 or so leading climate scientists” (Manne 2011), “928 scientific papers” (Manne 2011), “...peerreviewed scientific journals” (Manne 2011), a part of a letter written to every US senator from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in regards to climate change. Following this Manne uses an appeal to authority as a persuasive technique. Climate change being an issue where expertise is paramount, the use of authority anchors the argument to what is right and wrong, clear. Manne does this by bringing up Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science, whose work showed evidence of the consensus of the fundamental theory of climate change. The work was included in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which it was the basis of the report. Finally, and probably most importantly, the article uses science as an authority. Science deals with facts and evidence, therefore using a definate as an authority it is effective in persuading the reader that the stance of the article is the right stance.
1
Joel Spencer 3779350
Patrick Stokes, in his article, proclaims that “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for” (Stokes 2012) then delves right into the argument. The language is simple, and text short, which is easy for the reader to
Knowing and Knowledge Assessment 1 Comparative Analysis
This essay will be comparing and analysing the techniques used by two Melbourne based university lectures, Robert Manne and Patrick Stokes. Both dealing with the thematic subject of opinion.
Concerning Climate Change “Clear, Catastrophic threats, Manne opens the article with an anecdote, that a “part of the english syllabus [as a schoolboy] was “clear thinking”” (Manne 2011). This anecdote should set up a relevance and an accessibility to the reader drawing them in and sympathising with the argument that will be put forward. Almost a third of the article is dense with data. “1500 or so leading climate scientists” (Manne 2011), “928 scientific papers” (Manne 2011), “...peerreviewed scientific journals” (Manne 2011), a part of a letter written to every US senator from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in regards to climate change. Following this Manne uses an appeal to authority as a persuasive technique. Climate change being an issue where expertise is paramount, the use of authority anchors the argument to what is right and wrong, clear. Manne does this by bringing up Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science, whose work showed evidence of the consensus of the fundamental theory of climate change. The work was included in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which it was the basis of the report. Finally, and probably most importantly, the article uses science as an authority. Science deals with facts and evidence, therefore using a definate as an authority it is effective in persuading the reader that the stance of the article is the right stance.
1
Joel Spencer 3779350
Patrick Stokes, in his article, proclaims that “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for” (Stokes 2012) then delves right into the argument. The language is simple, and text short, which is easy for the reader to