Analyzing Message in "NASA to Cut Back Scientific Missions Because of Budget"

Points that are irrelevant to my text:

advocate for change- the article goes over the issues that with the NASA budget cuts, but it doesn't show any form of how it can change. It explains how it needs to change and why, but does not give a solution for change.

express an idea or opinion- the author mainly shows viewpoints of other astronomers or astrophysicists and agrees with them, but he doesn't bring his own words into the ideas on this controversy.

inform the reader about a topic that is often misunderstood- the author is informing readers about a topic, but has no intent to explain for people who don't understand. It is a simple topic.

analyze, synthesize, or interpret- the article only relays information about a situation that has occurred and his effects. The article does not deeply analyze the topic, but more shows its effects.

Points that are relevant:

respond to a particular occasion or text- the author is responding to the NASA budget cuts by showing scientists reactions and thoughts on the issue along with explaining the ongoing events taking place.

explore a topic: The article goes over the issue of the NASA budget cuts and how it has been effecting the scientists and NASA projects.

persuade readers of something: The author specifically goes over how these budge cuts are effecting NASA projects which will cause issues in NASA's plans for future experiments and technology. He tries to show how the scientists are feeling and being effected by these money issues.

reflect on a topic: along with exploring the issue, the author reflects by showing the circumstances towards our future.

Move the readers to feel a certain way- the author doesn't show many of his own opinions, but he only shows and talks about scientists that are hurt by these budget cuts. He doesn't talk about the people who decided to give NASA less money or show opposing view. This shows that the author is keeping the article one-sided to make people only see that side of the issue.

I don't see many nuances as the author shows many examples and arguments from scientists rather than himself.