Five Basic types of Public Argument 

The types of arguments that work for my project:

• Positions argument- This argument displays both sides of the controversy with there pros and cons and then includes an opinion of my own in which I pick a side and explain why. I think this one will work for my project because I think it is important to go over both sides of the controversy to show how I also respect the cu;true on Mauna Kea but still support the TMT project. It says "you would develop your own defenses of the position". This is important in my argument because its where I would show my perspective after I showed the two different perspectives on the controversy.
• Casual argument- This argument will work for my project because it displays a positions and then expands on the solutions to this controversy. Because my viewpoint on the controversy has a solution I feel that this argument style would be useful to use. Its says "yo are able to help your audience understand the potential solutions to the controversy as well". Majority of my argument is to help my audience understand the importance of this telescope. Thats why this will be an effective style. 
• Evaluative argument- "This argument evaluates the successfulness of a specific policy". My argument focuses on explaining how the telescope will be advantages to all and be successful in the future. This argument evaluates both sides of the controversy which will be helpful to me because I will be able to show respect to the Native Hawaiian view when evaluating their position on the controversy. That will help me receive less rebuttals to my argument. 

The types of arguments that will not work for my project:

• Proposal argument- This argument focuses on "analyzing a particular problem" further on making a proposal for the problem at hand. I feel that in my project I don't need to do much analysis of the problem, I just need to show a different viewpoint on the issue for my audience to think about. 
• Refutation argument- This argument is all about refuting another viewpoint which is exactly what I don't want to do. In my argument I want to introduce and new viewpoint that expands from others to support TMT. My argument does not point out any "harmful public effects" or try to downplay others views on the controversy.