For this rhetorical analysis I have done research on two electronics engineering documents commonly referred to as project proposals. The first project proposal that was reviewed was for Security Guard Monitoring Systems by Group Engineering Solutions (GES). The second proposal is a business-oriented document for Multi-Robot Manipulation and Maintenance for Fault-Tolerant Systems by Shanghai International Conference Center (SICC). The purpose of this rhetorical analysis is to identify various similarities and differences within the specified texts using Anne Beaufort’s (a linguist in the field of writing) five-knowledge domains: genre, subject matter, rhetoric, writing process, and discourse community. The attention of this rhetorical analysis will be mainly focused on the intended audience, context of the documents, writing structure and format, and each author’s appeal to Anne Beaufort’s rhetorical knowledge domain. The Shanghai proposal was written by an electronics engineer for viewers within several different qualifications and statuses. Apparently this proposal’s targeted audiences are people at the Shanghai Conference Center. The primary audience would consist of employees that are in the workplace genre of mechatronics and automation (MA), such as financers, operators, and managers. The second audience consists of those that may work in smaller sections of the field, such as maintenance workers, auditors, and supervisors. There are also audiences besides the primary and secondary audiences. Other potential audiences might include legislatures, product testers, and other smaller services within the field of engineering. This is evident through the description of the projects maintenance procedures. Someone has to test the machine and meetings must be held to discuss them. Unlike the Shanghai proposal the Group Solutions Engineer (GES) proposal has various audiences that don’t spread out to the same extent that Shanghai’s do. The project proposal by GES does not meet the expectations of business companies instead, their proposal meet expectations for good academics. This claim was easily identified at the beginning of text. They clearly stated that “Dr. Miguel Figueroa and Dr. Nayda G. Santiago” was receiving the proposal. Additional support to this claim was found through extended research on the two professors. The two professors are both neurologist which seemingly has nothing to do with engineering. This makes it apparent that the professors were teaching at a college or university during the proposal of this project. This also explains why they were the targeted audience (primary audience) for the proposal. The secondary audiences for the GES proposal are other university graduate students. Similar to Shanghai, the GES proposal also has a third audience except, these audiences consist of spectators and scouts. In other words, these viewers are graduate students from another university or managers out for potential employees. Moreover, Shanghai’s proposal contains several rhetorical aspects in is context. Shanghai’s proposal was obviously written in response to a company’s request for improved multi-robot systems. This demand was recognized because of the frequently used term referring to problems, errors, and system malfunctions. More specifically, they used the term “failure” more consistently than others throughout the paper (from I INTRODUCTION to VI CONCLUSION). For instance, in part “a” of section five (V Multi- Robot Maintenance policy) the writer of this Shanghai proposal says “In this period…the failure rate of the robot is also increased.” Another aspect contained within the Shanghai proposal is on how they express time as an issue. The term “failure” also implies that there is a time limit for this project proposal. It is relevant to assume that this project proposal was in the process of being developed during the time that the multi-robot machines were failing to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document