For this rhetorical analysis I have done research on two electronics technology paperss normally referred to as undertaking proposals. The first undertaking proposal that was reviewed was for Security Guard Monitoring Systems by Group Engineering Solutions ( GES ) . The 2nd proposal is a business-oriented papers for Multi-Robot Manipulation and Maintenance for Fault-Tolerant Systems by Shanghai International Conference Center ( SICC ) .

The intent of this rhetorical analysis is to place assorted similarities and differences within the specified texts utilizing Anne Beaufort’s ( a linguist in the field of composing ) five-knowledge spheres: genre. capable affair. rhetoric. composing procedure. and discourse community. The attending of this rhetorical analysis will be chiefly focused on the intended audience. context of the paperss. authorship construction and format. and each author’s entreaty to Anne Beaufort’s rhetorical cognition sphere. The Shanghai proposal was written by an electronics applied scientist for viewing audiences within several different makings and positions.

Apparently this proposal’s targeted audiences are people at the Shanghai Conference Center. The primary audience would dwell of employees that are in the workplace genre of mechatronics and mechanization ( MA ) . such as financers. operators. and directors. The 2nd audience consists of those that may work in smaller subdivisions of the field. such as care workers. hearers. and supervisors. There are besides audiences besides the primary and secondary audiences. Other possible audiences might include legislative assemblies. merchandise examiners. and other smaller services within the field of technology.

This is apparent through the description of the undertakings care processs. Person has to prove the machine and meetings must be held to discourse them. Unlike the Shanghai proposal the Group Solutions Engineer ( GES ) proposal has assorted audiences that don’t spread out to the same extent that Shanghai’s do. The undertaking proposal by GES does non run into the outlooks of concern companies alternatively. their proposal run into outlooks for good faculty members. This claim was easy identified at the beginning of text. They clearly stated that “Dr. Miguel Figueroa and Dr. Nayda G. Santiago” was having the proposal.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Extra support to this claim was found through extended research on the two professors. The two professors are both neurologist which apparently has nil to make with technology. This makes it evident that the professors were learning at a college or university during the proposal of this undertaking. This besides explains why they were the targeted audience ( primary audience ) for the proposal. The secondary audiences for the GES proposal are other university alumnus pupils. Similar to Shanghai. the GES proposal besides has a 3rd audience except. these audiences consist of witnesss and lookouts.

In other words. these viewing audiences are graduate pupils from another university or directors out for possible employees. Furthermore. Shanghai’s proposal contains several rhetorical facets in is context. Shanghai’s proposal was evidently written in response to a company’s petition for improved multi-robot systems. This demand was recognized because of the often used term mentioning to jobs. mistakes. and system malfunctions. More specifically. they used the term “failure” more systematically than others throughout the paper.

For case. in portion “a” of subdivision five ( V Multi- Robot Maintenance policy ) the author of this Shanghai proposal says “In this period…the failure rate of the automaton is besides increased. ” Another facet contained within the Shanghai proposal is on how they express clip as an issue. The term “failure” besides implies that there is a clip bound for this undertaking proposal. It is relevant to presume that this undertaking proposal was in the procedure of being developed during the clip that the multi-robot machines were neglecting to run consequently. One can besides state that demand for the proposal was turning by reading the care policy subdivision.

They take old automaton failures into considerations and develop loop holes to get the better of it. Although the company that the proposal was written for isn’t mentioned in the papers. it is easy to see that this proposal was written in response to some company’s policy. Unlike Shanghai’s proposal. the GES proposal does show who the proposal was written in response to. GES proposal was written in response to the petition of the University of Puerto Rico ( title page ) . Another contextual facet in which differs from Shanghai’s proposal is the clip restraint that is besides posed on their proposal.

GES makes it easier to acknowledge that they are working in a timely mode. They clearly province “A work dislocation construction has been created in which all members…work in two variables: clip and personnel” ( subdivision 1. 3 ) . This grounds arises from the fact that the group of alumnus pupils working on this proposal are trying to carry through the demands for the undertaking. This grounds is besides evident because of diagrams and charts used to demo how much the undertaking proposal has progressed ( subdivision 2. 6 ) .

In add-on to subdivisions 2. 6. subdivision 2. 7 gives expressed item. besides utilizing diagrams and charts. on the “work dislocation construction. This subdivision displays the undertakings assigned to each genre of the undertaking such as. unwritten presentation. package paradigm. web application. and concluding study. The work is divided equally amongst the group to guarantee that they have successfully completed the demands relative to the audiences’ values which will. subsequently on. be discussed in farther item. In add-on to the contexts ( models ) of the proposals. there are several similarities in both GES and Shanghai’s composing constructions and formats. The first similarity located in the proposals is frequently used in composing books such as literature. political scientific discipline. and algebra.

Both proposals use a broad scope of bold letters. rubrics. and Numberss. They besides use coroneted Numberss or subheadings. slugs. and Roman numbers. Even though these composing manner are incorporated in both undertaking proposals. GES uses coroneted Numberss. subheadings. and slugs ( even cheques ) more often than Shanghai’s proposal. Shanghai’s proposal repeatedly uses Roman numbers. and subheadings with get downing letters ( for illustration ; B. Robot Failure ) . Both seem to be an effectual attack to arranging undertaking proposals. Furthermore. abbreviations are besides used rather often throughout the proposals.

Like GES. Shanghai makes an attempt to utilize abbreviations to do it less hard for readers to grok. However. their effort in making so has obvious defects that can potentially perplex the reader and shorten the figure of intended audiences. For illustration. “Weibull distribution depicts the decreasing-failure-rate ( DFR ) …period of the bathing tub curve” ( subdivision B: Robot Failure ) . The proposal tells what each missive in the acronym stands for. but it does non specify the abbreviation as a whole whereas. GES proposal doesn’t give an expressed description of each term. but defines it wholly.

Another method of composing noticed within the proposals is the inclusion of mentions at the terminal. These mentions frequently consists of others paperss that helped bring forth the current 1. It is evident that mentions are normally used in any signifier of written paperss irrespective of its field or genre. Adding to the construction and data format. both proposals present several rhetorical characteristics relative to Anne Beaufort’s rhetorical cognition sphere ( ethos. Son. and poignancy ) . The GES proposal puts most of its attempts into set uping its credibleness ( ethos ) .

In the personal life subdivision of their proposal they give expressed item about their background experiences in their field of survey such as. package and hardware technology. The proposal besides provides charts and graphs of estimated costs which show that they are the best squad to be chosen for the undertaking. It besides shows that they are prepared for existent life state of affairss. Shanghai’s proposal does non concentrate the entireness of its text on ethos. because most of its audiences are professionals within their company.

There is no grounds to turn out their experience in the field nevertheless ; the credibleness that is provided in the papers consists of lone charts and drawings that show that they will probably hold effectual productiveness. These graphs and charts besides help the company see the attack taken to better the systems. Furthermore. both proposals take consideration in set uping Son. The charts and chart each proposal uses to set up credibleness is besides used to set up logic. These charts and graphs are used to back up their claim that they meet all the needed policies for the completion of the undertaking.

Pathos is besides used widely in Shanghai and GES proposals. As mentioned earlier both proposals are relevant to the audiences common values ( terminal of page 3 ) . These values are expense. clip. proficiency. and development. The charts and graphs used to back up the ethos and Son in each proposal are besides used to back up this claim. They provide a description of estimated cost. efficiency and productiveness. and give a timely description of the undertakings patterned advance. The wide-ranging of entreaty to these values allows for each proposal to be really persuasive while go throughing on factual statistics.

Most undertaking proposals are done similar to Shanghai’s and Group Engineering Solutions ( GES ) proposals. These two paperss contain several similarities and differences in their rhetorical characteristics. Although both texts may differ in their proposal method. they both have the same end. They were meant to convert the reader that they were the most fit group or company for the completion of the undertaking proposal. After finishing this rhetorical analysis I realize the significance in composing in the specific genre. Each undertaking proposal reflects positively harmonizing to the necessity of the petition.


I'm Niki!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out