We will focus on assessing the authority, writing style, target readership, and purpose of the two articles, as well as the reliability and clarity of the sources cited. Analysis of Rhetorical Context
In comparing the rhetorical contexts of the two articles, we find significant differences. Himmelreich, who is associated with a prestigious university, presents an accessible ethical perspective that focuses on the immediate ethical challenges facing self-driving cars and their creators. This makes him an insightful and fair-minded analyst. In contrast, Hevelke and Nida-Rümelin's article is geared towards an academic audience and delves into the theoretical issues of legal and moral responsibility in self-driving car accidents. Their discourse is aimed at an erudite audience, whereas Himmelreich's target audience is broader. The genres of the two articles also reflect these differences: while Himmelreich's article is more of a general ethical discussion, Haywerk and Nida Lümmelin provide scholarly research on legal and ethical frameworks. Their goals also differ: Himmelreich aims to promote broad ethical thinking, whereas Helweck and Nida Lümmelin seek to contribute to the academic and legal discourse surrounding technological advances.