Analyzing Purpose

This blog post contains an discussion of my own goals for my argument in project 3.

Ede, Sharon. "Calvin-Susie." 10/30/15 via Cruxcatalysit

The main goals of my public argument is to convince two sides of a controversy to agree with one another on certain points that I believe to be right. My belief is that Froome should not be under such close scrutiny and shouldn't be accused of cheating until this actually can be proven. As far as evidence or proof, there is nothing substantial or definitive that justifies the accusations that are being thrown at Froome. On the other hand, Froome and Sky clearly had the wrong reaction to leaked data. I support their opposition on this situation, as if they truly had nothing to hide Froome should've allowed the data to be public. When arguing this I want readers to see the logic and reasonable position that I am taking, so that they can primarily agree with my argument, or at least be able to see the reason behind the argument of opposition.

Plausible actions/reactions:
Because I am going down the middle, and taking the side of (lets call them group a and group b, a being in support of all that Froome did, and b being in opposition of all that Froome did) each group in one of the two situations, my audience will most likely react in agreement to a portion of my argument.
I believe that even if some aren't convinced of my argument, they will still be able to see the reason behind the side that I am arguing, and will better understand the other side of the argument than what they agree with.

Not plausible:
Of course it is not plausible that everyone agrees with everything I have to say.
I don't expect everyone to finish my entire argument, and this will most likely depend on how I structure it.

Likely Consequences:
I don't expect to be reaching a huge audience, so I don't expect the consequences of my argument to be that widespread.
The first consequence I can foresee is that some audience members change their minds about what they believe about the controversy.
A second consequence I can foresee is that some of my audience learns about the Froome controversy for the first time, and as I am their first source, they will most likely agree with my argument.
If I was reaching a wider audience, and include the proper data to support my argument, I could see accusations against Froome being somewhat stifled as a consequence of my argument.

Possible Audiences:
Among the audiences are the two groups that I mentioned above, group a and group b. Both of these groups are equally likely to move towards my goal in some way, as I expect them both to agree with at least some of my argument. Also among my audience is those who have no previous conceptions or ideas about the Froome controversy, and have not yet taken a side. These audience members are most likely to advance my cause, because I expect them to agree with most of what I have to say.