Chapter 14 Summary and an Example of a Proposal Argument.

            Proposal arguments are the most common form of arguments that we encounter on a regular basis. We encounter them in both a casual atmosphere and a business atmosphere. Chapter fourteen taught us how to understand how a proposal argument works by outlining how to find an issue, and how to develop different way to execute the argument to make it as effective as possible. Throughout the chapter, it demonstrated that our audience is key when developing a proposal argument. The main goal is to convince the audience that a problem exists, and that the problem should be addressed. The audience will naturally have a level of distrust, as well as a sense of conservatism. It is difficult to predict the future, so it is important to evaluate any consequences that may occur when attempting to provide a solution for the problem that you are addressing. In order to develop a proposal argument, after convincing the audience of the problem, you must show specifics of your proposal. After providing specifics, you then must show justification for your solution to be enacted. 

         In proposal arguments, an effective way to present your issue is by using advocacy posters or advertisements. Visual proposals are very common and are seen frequently throughout our daily lives. You can see proposal arguments everywhere. if you look on light poles, or bulletin boards on campus, or even on television commercials, there you will see a proposal argument. There is an organization that is working on a project called Project Aware, and the posters that they have are very effective because they are simple, and at the same time, they are shocking. The first poster on the web page shows a picture of a dead fish with the words "waves of waste" around the fish, and surrounding the fish and words are countless empty water bottles with other dead fish floating around. The smaller text says: "Plastic waste is overtaking our oceans today. 90% of marine debris is made up of plastics.", and on the bottom it says: "Educate yourselves about dumping pollutants into ocean waters. Learn more at ProjectAware.org". This advocacy poster first grabs the audience's attention, educates them, and finally shows them where they can go to seek further information. I believe it is effective because it makes the audience believe that there is an issue, and then prompts the audience to take some form of action. This is an example of how one small poster can convey a serious issue and create a change at the same time. 

Website Review for Research Efforts

When deciding about the sources that I thought would be relevant to the topic of my argumentative paper, I attempted to use multiple types of sources as well as different website domain endings; such as .com, .edu, .net, .gov, .org.

            One of the first places that I looked for a reputable source was the library data base’s online references. The librarian explained to us that those sources were verified multiple times to evaluate the validity of the material, and the source itself had a link or website that ended with “.org”. This archive claimed that they were “the source for great research…”, and with the ease of finding a related article plus the added bonus of the library’s support, I determined that this source would be reputable/ credible. This source provided a plethora of background information, with quotations and an extensive ‘references’ page at the end. One downside of this source was the large amount of background information regarding pollution, and had to be sifted through thoroughly as I was gathering information.

            The second source that I chose was also one which ended in “.org” and was a research based site called “The Center for Biological Diversity”. I chose this site because of the appearance of validity that it provided, the amount of facts that were referenced or quoted, and because of the information that was provided regarding interactions between that organization and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. I found that source to be simple and yet very descriptive with the topic of pollution, the causes, consequences and solutions. This source was also easy to read and comprehend the material that it presented to its readers.

            The third source that I chose was one that belongs to the City of Fort Collins, CO. I chose this source because the topic of my paper derived from a local law that was passed recently. The city’s website is referenced as “.com” but the source is the local city government, so I felt somewhat confused as to why it wasn’t labeled as “.gov”. The source in consideration with its validity or accurate information was superior and would be considered a primary source. I found factual information that I considered to be reliable, which is why I chose to use that source.

            The final source that I chose was one that presented an opposing view to my argumentative claim. I had a difficult time trying to find a source that was reputable, so I relied more on my intuition in regards to the author’s background information. The last site was a “.com” website, and was put together as a crusade against local and statewide plastic bag bans. I found the author to be credible because he was a Federal Government employee for the past forty years. The author also did more than simply oppose the bans due to other arguments that I came across during my research. Most of the opposing claims said things such as; “It takes away our personal freedoms!…. It’s unconstitutional!” I found those claims lacking any follow up or options for a resolution. This author spent a majority of the article explaining causes of pollution as well as many different options to reduce waste and prevent further pollution, and that is why I chose to reference his website in my counter claim.

            I wished that I would have found more sources with different domain endings; however the four that I chose appeared to provide a sense of validity as well as a solution to a problem I was attempting to address.