Bruce, a research chemist for a major petro-chemical company,wrote a dense report about some new compounds he had synthesized inthe laboratory from oil-refining by-products. The bulk of thereport consisted of tables listing their chemical and physicalproperties, diagrams of their molecular structure, chemicalformulas and computer printouts of toxicity tests. Buried at theend of the report was a casual speculation that one of thecompounds might be a particularly effective insecticide.

Seven years later, the same oil company launched a majorresearch program to find more effective but environmentally safeinsecticides. After six months of research, someone uncoveredBruce’s report and his toxicity tests. A few hours of furthertesting confirmed that one of Bruce’s compounds was the safe,economical insecticide they had been looking for.

Bruce had since left the company, because he felt that theimportance of his research was not being appreciated.

1. Define the rhetorical situation: Who iscommunicating to whom about what, how, and why? What was the goalof the communication in each case?
2. Identify the communication error (poor task oraudience analysis? Use of inappropriate language or style? Poororganization or formatting of information? Other?)
3. Explain what costs/losses were incurred bythis problem.
4. Identify possible solutions or strategies thatwould have prevented the problem, and what benefits would bederived from implementing solutions or preventing the problem.