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 argues that the government responds to public opinion of space policy, and plans their funding of NASA accordingly. He claims that the public is known to support space exploration but not the increased funding of NASA, and the government's response to this is to Fund NASA more money each year, while it still being a smaller percentage of the overall budget. The author uses both logos and ethos, but does not use a pathos appeal.  He uses the credibility of his sources to bolster his own when using ethos to show information regarding the studies behind his argument. He employs logos by including a multitude of facts and statistics for his argument. The appeal that he does not use is an emotional appeal of pathos, which is understandable as he is simply trying to prove a correlation exists and not making a call to action to the reader. While the author does use these appeals to show that there is a relationship between public opinion and NASA funding, he still is lacking a specific argument about this relationship, making it difficult to really influence the reader.

Steinberg does not attempt to use any situated Ethos, or previously established or assumed credibility on the subject, instead making 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 a "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 uses this statement to draw arguments from, stating that this means that "the public might not have cared about space policy" This helps the author to get his argument across, as the strength of the facts from others gives the author a good base of knowledgeability on the subject. This is because it lets the author know that even if he has not been researching this for a long time, he can still be knowledgeable because of the reputable studies he gets his facts from. Overall, even though Steinberg relied on the credibility of others to strengthen his own, his use of ethos does help to support the idea of his article. 

Steinberg uses the logical appeal of logos in this article by using lots of statistics and information from studies about public opinion affecting government funding. This helps add to his argument that this correlation between the two exists. The best example of good logical appeal in the article is when he includes a graph comparing U.S. tolerance for NASA spending, NASA budget as a percentage of the overall budget, and NASA budget in real dollars. The tolerance for spending was varied up and down, alluding that people were mixed on the idea. The budget however, was clearly increasing in real dollars but still decreasing as a percent of the total budget, showing that it is technically increasing but not meaningfully. This graph displayed a relationship he claimed proved that the government was "responsive to both sides of the issue, providing what the people want in regards to reducing funding for NASA as a percentage of the budget while responding to supporters of the space program by increasing funding in real dollars." This does prove that a relationship is there, but much like the rest of the data and references that were included by Steinberg in the text, they are not utilized because he makes no argument from them. He does not draw any argument or meaning from this relationship. 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 other than that there is a relationship between public opinion and government funding.

The author neglects to use an emotional appeal of pathos at all in the text, but I think that it is justified because he does not make an argument that would utilize an emotional appeal as a call-to-action for the reader. 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, let alone 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. Everyone is 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 add this pathos appeal. Overall, I think it is clear that there is an absence of an emotional appeal, but I do not think that it hurts the author's argument, or lack thereof, because it is not necessary for this topic.

In this piece he discusses how NASA's funding is affected by public opinion. He clearly hits on the appeals of ethos and logos, while neglecting pathos for a good reason. This combination of appeals gives him a good basis of showing and explaining his topic, but he fails to take it further by introducing his own argument. 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?" 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 renders his article a lot less useful, as it doesn't persuade the audience of much of anything.

