Basic

Rhetorical Analysis
To: Professor Placky

From: Ryan Kerr

Subject: Rhetorical Analysis of Science Fair Fun

Date: 9/1/2015

For my basic rhetorical analysis, I chose to evaluate Science Fair Fun, an EPA issued
document. In order to analyze this technical document correctly, I followed the six
characteristics of a technical document created by Mike Markel. I have categorized
this analysis by each characteristic and explain each one below.

Did it address particular readers?

This technical document made a very clear understanding of whom it was intended
for. This clear understanding comes from the second page of the document. There is
a note for both teachers and students, and it informs the teacher that the document
was made for students in grades 6 through 8 that need to come up with ideas for a
science fair project. There are no translations or foreign language on the document,
so teachers and students must be very familiar with English. I would say the school
that the students and teacher belong to must have some financial backup to support
these kinds of science fairs. On page 3, it says to ask the teacher if you need to obtain
special equipment, so the teachers must have some funding to support this.

Did it help readers solve problems?

If the students need project ideas for a science fair, it would most certainly be
helpful. This document starts out by giving step-by-step instructions to conduct a
science project, which many 6 through 8th graders probably dont know how to do.
This document gives the students ideas of where to start for an EPA related project
also by searching on the Internet, going to the library, and talking to others. This
document may also help a teacher by giving them project ideas for a class
assignment. The instructions for creating the report may also help an inexperience
teacher.

Did it reflect the organizations goals and culture?

The first thing reflecting the EPA jumped out on page 1 of the document. There is an
orange box that describes exactly what the EPA is and clearly states what its goals
are. It doesnt get anymore straightforward. On the very last page of the document at
the bottom it says Printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer

fiber. Assuming this document was originally printed by the EPA on their paper,
this sentence clearly reflects what the EPA is trying to do, which is reduce, reuse,
and recycle. The sample projects listed all follow the EPAs goals a lot, maybe so
much that the projects themselves may not be enjoyable. Another downside to these
sample projects was the suggestion of students to be handling hazardous waste on
page 9. This document doesnt use the word safe or safety at all, and safety
should always be a concern and goal.

Was it produced collaboratively?

Since the EPA consists of thousands of workers, it would make sense that this
document was produced collaboratively. All of the project ideas have references to
books on science fair projects, so the authors of those books take the credit for the
ideas. However, these references only refer to the projects and not the steps for
creating the report of the project. So someone that works for the EPA must have
some knowledge on education to produce these steps. There would have also been
another collaborator that designed and formatted the document.

Did it use design to increase readability?

When looking at this document, you can tell right away that it was created for kids.
There are lots of colors, shapes, and a kid-like font in the title to make the document
positive and attractive towards students in grades 6 through 8. The second page of
the document has notes on it to tell the teachers and students exactly whats going
on. The document was designed in a way that it is very easy to understand by having
a table of contents on the 3rd page. This table of contents includes a glossary, which
can be very helpful for kids in grades 6 through 8, since they are still building
vocabulary.

Did it consist or words or images or both?

It can easily be seen that this document was made to catch the eye of a young
student. There are tons of animated pictures. This is what students at this age want.
The images dont communicate instructions, descriptions, or large data, so they
dont have much value towards the actual projects themselves. Some of the images
included a test tube, pencil, magnifying glass, and calculator. These images were
only included to make the document look interesting and more appealing to the
young reader.

After evaluating the technical document using these 6 characteristics, I believe that
this is a well-written document with only a few minor setbacks. It was interesting to
evaluate this document because of my personal experiences of once being a student
at that age. The result of this experience was a better evaluation since I could think
in the first person perspective.