TOW Re-Write- Beyond 2012: Why the World Won't End

There are few who have not heard that this Friday, December 21^st, 2012, the world is supposedly coming to an end. However, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) argues that December 21^st 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 21^st, 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.