The article I chose to analyze was "Space Policy Responsiveness: The Relationship Between Public Opinion and NASA Funding" by Alan Steinberg. This article takes a deep look at how the government funding of NASA correlates with the public views on space exploration policy. Steinberg employs a plethora of facts and statistics to back up his argument, using a mixture of the three appeals to his audience which are? . Although all three types of appeals are attempted in the text, he does not fully employ any of them. Don't speak so broadly about the 'three appeals'  --  use their names and talk in a more focused manner about how or why Steinberg utilizes them. When reading this piece, it is the lack of these appeals [which ones? ] that prevents the author from making any specific argument, causing this piece to be incapable of really influencing the reader. In this intro you need to be more specific. You speak vaguely, so your reader cannot follow your argument. 

The first appeal is ethos, or the authors' credibility or authority. Steinberg does not attempt to use any situated ethos, or previously established or assumed credibility on the subject. Instead he tries to make himself trustworthy to the reader by supporting his own credibility on the topic with the credibility of others. He does this by using different sources of high intellectual standing, and citing them in the text so that the reader can know that even if the author isn't an expert on the subject, all of the information and statistics that he may use are all coming from reputable sources. For example, he says that "set of polls led to an argument that less than 10% of American adults were both interested and knowledgeable about the space program". This information is coming from a source other than himself, yet he still goes off of it, stating that this means that "the public might not have cared about space policy" This is not enough for the reader to fully back the author, as they could feel that while you can trust the facts the author uses, he has no credibility because he makes a weak argument about something the fact made obvious. Steinberg's lack of a strong voice on the facts he presents from other sources discredits himself, and adding this voice would greatly improve the piece. Overall, Steinberg failed to create his own ethos by relying too heavily on that of other people. 

Another appeal that was attempted in the text by Steinberg is logos, or the logic of an argument [don't just stop with observation here. Tell me why he uses logos and whether or not it works]. This was used by the author, but in an unconventional way. This is because Steinberg does not have a central argument that is pointed, or takes a direct stance on either side of the argument. In this piece he discusses how NASA's funding is affected by public opinion. He presents the topic in the introduction and states that the text "will seek to address two separate but linked questions. First, concerning the awareness of space policy as an issue, do people even care about it? Second, does public opinion influence space policy, and if not, then who or what does?" What is his ultimate claim/finding? This approach to the issue is too passive, and the author doesn't attempt to persuade the audience in any way, but rather give them the facts and pose the questions in more of a "food for thought" approach, letting the reader make their own opinion on the matter. This is not a good use of logos to make a persuasive argument. All the data and references that were included by Steinberg in the text are not utilized because he makes no argument from them. In the text as a whole, logos would seem to be the most prevalent appeal, but is wasted due to the author's neglect to make an argument out of it. Good ideas in this graph, but they need more detail/analysis

The last appeal to consider when analyzing a text rhetorically is pathos, or an emotional appeal. Steinberg neglects to use a pathetic appeal at all in the text, and I think that it hurts his argument a lot. Using an emotional appeal is a great way to get an audience on your side, and increases your chances of selling your argument to the people who are reading your text by playing to their emotions on the topic. It seemed to me like the author had little to no interest in convincing the audience much of anything, because he failed to appeal to them in this way. Steinberg doesn't use pathos because he focuses on the facts and statistics from logos and the references and credibility of others from ethos to support his text. Also, he doesn't appeal to pathos because his argument is more of stating facts and posing questions to allow the reader to make their own decisions about the topic rather than a rallying call to action on one side of the issue, which would be appealing to the emotional side of the reader. The author could incorporate pathos into his text by playing into everyone's natural emotions about space. Most people are fascinated by space in one way or another. Many people wanted to be astronauts when they were little, and I believe that just about every American deep down has an interest in learning more about the mystery of space. Outer space is the final frontier, the last area we have to explore and find out more about possible other life, as laughable as that may seem at times. All this emotion is left completely untapped by the author in the text, and if it were utilized, it would not only add the pathos appeal, but would also add to the ethos appeal by contributing to the invented ethos of the author because it would endear the audience to him because of how he plays into their emotional feelings toward the mystery of space. Overall, I think it is clear that the absence of an emotional appeal hurts the author's argument, or lack thereof, and adding one would greatly improve the piece.

While all three appeals are there to be utilized, the author doesn't fully take advantage of any of them. The Ethos is all based off of the credibility of others instead of the authors own. The Logos appeal is, while very well supported factually, not pointed in any specific direction, and takes no direct stance on the issue. The Pathos is non-existent, as it doesn't appeal to the emotions people have towards space. Overall, the author missed on just about all 3 of these appeals, and it would greatly improve his argument and text overall if he were to attempt to incorporate them better and more fully.

