Report Analysis – “Seawater pH and Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide”
The following is a rhetorical analysis of the technical report “Seawater pH and Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide,” checking for various aspects of rhetorical quality and consistency, as well as layout and appearance. Recommendations are then made for improvements to rhetorical quality.
Appeal to Audience
Achievement of Purpose
The goal of the paper is to introduce its audience to the concepts of pCO2 and pH and their relationship to one another, as well as their applicability to data on atmospheric carbon dioxide taken from Ocean Station Alpha and others. In terms of providing these introductory concepts, the paper achieves its purpose; the layout is clear and concise, and secondary sources are used appropriately to improve credibility. In describing and explaining the concepts surrounding the issue of atmospheric carbon dioxide and seawater pH, the paper is successful; however, it does fail in providing proper context to the findings and synthesizing them into active contributions to the existing research on the subject.
Appropriateness of Tone
While the report mostly adopts an appropriately academic tone, there are some instances in which the writing is inappropriately casual. In the first sentence of the introduction, the pronoun ‘we’ is used without establishing the audience it refers to. Emotional appeals are used, perhaps inappropriately, later in the introduction, when referring to the ocean as “one of the world’s most precious assets” (p. 2). Many open questions are used to pose interrogatives that the authors will answer later: “The Royal Society report assumed no surface water mixing with the deeper oceans. How justified is this assumption?” (p. 6). This serves to inappropriately fill space in the paragraphs, which could be written more concisely and effectively. This also furthers the inconsistent tone of the work, which alternates between cold data and impassioned, casual writing.
Consistency in Point of View
Layout, Graphics and Appearance
The layout of the technical report is fairly straightforward, with an introduction, conclusion, and various arguments and subjects in between that are prefaced at the end of the introduction. Equations and graphs are appropriately explained and given proper context, so they are not inordinately confusing to the reader. However, some (such as Figure 2 on page 5) are inappropriately small, to the extent of being difficult to see. This makes it difficult to fully extrapolate the data provided in the graph, decreasing its utility in the paper. The use of an appendix to further describe seawater response to increased carbon dioxide is welcome, as it provides a more basic explanation of the science involved in the argument.
Recommendations
In light of the preceding rhetorical analysis of the paper, several recommendations can be made. First and foremost, a consistent tone must be found concordant with the audience of the paper; given the technical nature of the paper, it is advised that a more academic tone be taken. Fewer casual pronouns and instances of open interrogatives should be used, in favor of providing clear contextualization of hard data and equations. This would also minimize unneeded editorializing and offer the intended academic audience a more professional view of the issues being discussed. Other changes include offering a discussion section to provide further context for the significance of the data provided, as well as a more effective summary in the conclusion (which acts primarily as a brief ‘implications for future research’ section).
References
Seawater pH and Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide. Pp. 1-14.
