- The group of peers would more than likely, upon hearing my argument, be in agreement with the aspect of funding NASA as a whole. I think it is not common knowledge to know about private funding, although many people do know who Elon Musk is, although they might be ok with two-sided funding because they think of people like Musk. In general, I believe that in order to have a good opinion and be able to agree with my topic or disagree, you would need to be educated.
- A diverse group of peers is more likely to be less informed than I am, especially since I was uninformed when I started learning about two-sided funding. For them to make an educated decision, they would need to know how much money (in comparison or side by side with the government) these private companies would put into the research. They would want to know the pro’s and con’s about two-sided funding, and how, although having limited access to what NASA has open to them and uses for “free” doesn’t really affect the general public, it does affect scientists and slows down technological advances. The group of peers will probably already know about Elon Musk and have a bias towards him, making them see all private funding as the personality of Musk. They will definitely know about NASA.
- I definitely do have a two-front war including the views of those on full government funding, and full private company funding. I might want to take on the full government funding first because it ties in with what I want to be my opening claim and I can also address what we have been doing for a while. Because my opening claim will sound like I am agreeing with the opposing side, I want to take a more in between tone. I definitely want to make my opinion known but I don’t want my essay to seem like I am forcing my opinions on others. I want to win the reader over to my side by facts and not force/ making them feel guilty.
- My thesis is going to be a little shocking to the reader since I will seem to be arguing the case of a different viewpoint when actually, I am just making my case stronger. I feel like in the end, most people will agree with me because I feel that the general public would benefit more from combined funding rather than black or white.
- In the past, I have addressed the opposing views and looked into what someone could use against my claim. This definitely works for obvious reasons and with that, it helps in this paper because it’s not my first time looking into the opposing view.
- Introduction
- Address opposing viewpoint
- Strong thesis
- First body paragraph
- Full fund by gov.
- Taxes
- Budget cuts
- Less technological adv.
- Pretty controlled
- What we are use to
- Full fund by gov.
- Second body paragraph
- Full Private comp. Fund
- Slower tech. Advances
- Using equipment costs money
- Lower taxes/gov. Does Not pay
- Meets needs gov. Cant.
- Better opportunities
- Full Private comp. Fund
- Third body paragraph
- Both Gov. and Private
- Tech would be produced at good rate.
- Tech would cost to use but gov fund would help with that.
- Lower tax
- No one power has too much control over nasa
- Make sure to touch on bad things coming out of this and rebuttal
- Both Gov. and Private
- Closing
- ???
Taylor's Blog 