For this essay, you will analyze one of the following readings: Seneca’s “Liberal and Vocational Studies,” “Learning to Read” by Frederick Douglass, Martha Nussbaum’s “Not for Profit” or David Foster Wallace’s “Kenyan Commencement Speech” (not Moore’s “Idiot Nation”).
Analyze the rhetorical effectiveness of the writer’s argument using the critical reading strategies and rhetorical terminology we’ve used in class. For example, your essay could examine the writer’s attempt to build credibility with the audience, the ways in which the writer appeals to the audience’s emotions or reason, the structure of the argument, or the evidence used. What aspects of the text are successful? What aspects of the text are less successful? Why? Your analysis of the text should be clear, pointed, and organized.
Grading Criteria: Your essay should demonstrate that you are able to do the following:
- Have a clear purpose.
- Clearly state the issue.
- Present a clear, specific, arguable thesis.
- Support your thesis with well-paragraphed evidence and rhetorical analysis.
- Use effective, relevant quotes as evidence to support your thesis.
- Demonstrate awareness of audience through appropriate academic tone.
- Present focused, well-developed body paragraphs relevant to the thesis.
- Quote, summarize, and paraphrase the argument as necessary.
- Use MLA format/in-text citations.
- Articulate your ideas with clarity at the sentence and paragraph levels.
- Write an essay free of errors in spelling, grammar, and mechanics.
Below you’ll find some potentially helpful information as you work on your draft of the first essay:
While summary can be a useful tool in any kind of academic paper, in a rhetorical analysis, summary should be used sparingly. The majority of your body paragraphs should be an analysis (i.e., an evaluation/judgment) of how effective or ineffective parts of the text are.
Here are some examples to help highlight the differences (credit to Lindsay Short of North Carolina State University):
- Summary: Smith says global warming has negative effects and we should care about our world’s future.
vs
Rhetorical analysis: Smith provides multiple negative effects of global warming and punctuates his sentences with exclamation marks; thus, he uses quantitative descriptions and punctuation to create a sense of urgency in his readers to care about the planet’s status regarding global warming. This strengthens his argument by…
- Summary: Johnson has a lot of formal language throughout his paper and hardly any informal words.
vs
Rhetorical analysis: Johnson employs formal language throughout his essay. For example, he argues unequal funding in public schools creates a “horrific imbalance between affluent communities and those that are impoverished” (27). In using formal, academic writing, he establishes himself as a credible and valid author (thus, creating ethos from the classical form). This is beneficial because…
What within the text “works?” What doesn’t? Why and how? These latter two questions are crucial. It’s not sufficient to say, for instance, that the personable tone that Frederick Douglass uses helps draw the reader into his story – you have to explain how and/or why this is and how/why this helps Douglass in terms of accomplishing whatever his goal is with “Learning to Read.”
These three rhetorical strategies, that is, strategies aimed at better communicating ideas and/or convincing others of our ideas, were first articulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle more than 2000 years ago. The fact that we still study and employ them speaks to their continued effectiveness. I want to be clear, however, that these are not the only relevant or important rhetorical strategies people employ. We will look at more that are absolutely worth consideration when conducting a rhetorical analysis.
Ethos (credibility): this refers to credibility – the trustworthiness and believability – of the author. For instance, what professional or educational background does the author have that makes them somebody worth listening to relative to the topic at hand? What life experience do they have that makes them informed on the subject? However, it’s important to remember that ethos can be established directly and indirectly.
Maybe an author specifically points out what their relevant experience is that makes them worth listening to, but they might not (which is why you should Google authors!). Yet the way they write can establish their ethos instead. If they are consistently rational, if they use quality, verifiable evidence, if they are intellectually honest, if they’re fair to opposing points of view, avoid hyperbolic and inflammatory statements – all of this can contribute to building trust with the reader.
Pathos (emotion): the use of emotional appeals can be very powerful and successful. An author can attempt to arouse any number of emotions in their audience. An author can try to make their audience feel sympathy, either for author themselves or for someone else. They can try to make people fearful, and as a result make their audience more or less likely to support a particular plan or course of action. The same can be said by making an audience feel angry. Authors can also try to instill a sense of belonging in their audience, making them feel like they’re part of something larger than themselves, or make them feel like they’re not alone.
There are downsides to the use of pathos, however. Pathos is often used in propaganda and other pieces of media and literature as a means of control and influence. Take anger, for example. When angry, it’s often hard to be objective and rational. Thus, an author who is trying to rile up their audience might be trying to cover up deficiencies in his or her argument, hoping that in their anger, the audience won’t realize weaknesses in any evidence and claims. While a sense of belonging can be positive and empowering, it can also lead to viewing those not in the group as bad, dangerous, untrustworthy, etc., without any actual legitimate reason to think so. So while pathos is absolutely a valid rhetorical technique, whenever you see it used, be vigilant and ask yourself how and why it is being used. Is the author trying to manipulate you? Trick you? Distract you from shallow or inaccurate aspects of their argument?
Logos (logic/reason): Aristotle understandably thought that ethos was crucial to rhetoric, but so too, and arguably more so, is logos. Logos is the intellecutually meaningful substance of any act of communication. It is the proverbial meat on the bone.
How logically consistent is an argument? How rational are the claims built upon the evidence the author provides you? What unjustified or unsupported assumptions exist in the text? To what extent does a text successfully appeal to the rational, objective intellect of our minds as opposed to emotions, biases, ignorance, and so on? Statistics, for instance, can be an appeal to logos, but it entirely depends on the context: are the statistics being fairly and accurately presented by the author? Logical fallacies and propaganda techniques, which we’ll look at later in the semester, are also relevant considerations.
Please include a separate page for the works cited. This essay can be 3-4 pages. Please use the source that I attached below. Let me know if you have any questions or specific concerns! Thank you!