Read the following definitions of technical communication and explain how they are similar or different. Next, choose one or more of the definitions and explain why it or they make(s) (a) "good" definition(s) of technical communication. Definition 1: "Technical communication is a process of managing technical information in ways that allow people to take action” (Johnson-Sheehan 11). Definition 2: “Communication about complex, highly detailed problems, issues, or subjects in the professional  world, which helps audiences visualize and understand information so that they can make informed and ethical decisions or take appropriate and safe actions” (Dobrin, Keller, and Weisser 4). Definition 3: “Scientific and technical communication is a process of gathering, organizing, presenting, and refining information. It is a also a process of persuasion that often appeals to objectivity to appeal to an audience. Finally, it is a process that is shaped by contexts in which it occurs and that is improved when it recognizes these contexts” (Collier and Toomey 3). Definition 4: In his book Technical Communication, Mike Markel notes that technical communication is a form of composition and the foundation of all composition is rhetoric, “Technical communication is not a strange and exotic form of encryption; it is simply another kind of composition. It follows, then, that technical communication and composition share the same foundation: rhetoric” (Markel). 2. Read and respond to the three discussion questions posted. Discussion Facilitation Questions What were the main problems with having a universal definition for technical communication? Would you support a universal definition of technical communication or not, and what would be the reasoning behind your decision? Do you agree or disagree with Jo Allen on the problems there is with defining Technical Writing? Explain your response and cite evidence from the text. Jo Allen conveys, “...we should reconsider works, like Carlson’s cookbook, that fall so naturally in line with almost all the criteria we claim for technical writing before we exclude these works for violating a single criterion?” (74). Do you believe we should exclude or not exclude written works that violate a single criterion of technical writing? In other words, do you agree or disagree with Jo Allen’s statement? Why or why not?