There are few who have not heard that this
Friday, December 21st, 2012, the world is supposedly coming to an
end. However, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) argues
that December 21st will not be the end of the world, which is
contrary to what the Mayan calendar predicts. Instead, there will be another
winter solstice. In a question and answer format, NASA explains the origin of
the theories behind the end of the world, and refutes these proposed
explanations. NASA, an agency of the United
States government that is responsible for the
civilian space program and for aerospace research, wrote this article. For this reason, the
article is certainly credible. NASA was prompted to write this article in
response to the recent uproar concerning the end of the world. Therefore,
NASA’s purpose in writing this article is to present a scientific approach to
explain not only why the world is NOT ending this Friday, but also to answer
frequently asked questions to help settle people’s nerves about this upcoming
event. Thus, it is only logical that the audience for this article is those
concerned about the world ending.
There are several rhetorical devices used in this article to help the author
achieve his purpose of convincing society that the world is not going to end
this Friday. The most prominent device used is concrete language that assists a
logical appeal. Concrete language is language that describes specific,
observable things, people, or places, rather than ideas or qualities. In response
to every question proposed, NASA uses specific, observable facts to present
their argument that the word is not ending, rather than abstract ideas like
those supporting the Mayan Calendar claim. This language pulls people away from
the Mayan myth and towards logical and factual science. Another subtle
rhetorical device that assists the reader’s understanding is the informal,
conversational diction accompanied by minimal scientific jargon. Although the
author did incorporate scientific reasoning, the author kept the scientific
terms to a minimum. Instead, he used layman’s terms to explain the same general
concept. If the author were to have written a report packed with scientific
terms, it would have become confusing, dull, and distant. However, with the
conversational, informal diction, readers were able to follow along without
difficulty, and stay engaged from beginning to end.
Overall, I do believe NASA accomplished their purpose of presenting scientific
reasoning to explain why the world is not ending on December 21st,
2012. By using a conversational style accompanied by concrete language, NASA
was able to provide a logical explanation to convince the public that the world
will continue to exist like it has for 4 billion years. Without the use of
these rhetorical devices, the author would not have been able to convince those
believing in the Mayan calendar that it is indeed false.