Wisneski

ENG 102

Essay #1: Rhetorical Analysis

ASSIGNMENT:

     Select ONE of the following authors from Rereading America: Stephanie Coontz, Danielle Crittenden, Ann Crittenden, Joshua Gamson, Judy Aulette, Michael Moore, Jean Anyon, Claude M. Steele, Deborah Tannen, Benjamin R. Barber,  Gregory Mantsios,Tim Kasser, Ronald Takaki, Aaron H. Devor, Jean Kilbourne, Michael A. Messner, Christina Hoff Sommers, Joan Morgan, Vincent Parrillo, Shelby Steele, Paul L. Wachtel, George M. Fredrickson, Steinhorn and Diggs-Brown, Leon Wynter, Dinesh D’Souza, Mark Hertsgaard, Michael Medved, Todd Gitlin, Patricia J. Williams, or Ralph Temple.

 

     Write a 3- to 4-page essay in which you critique the article, FOCUSING EXCLUSIVELY ON HOW THE ARTICLE IS WRITTEN, NOT THE ARTICLE’S ARGUMENT ITSELF. Only address weaknesses and/or strengths with how the writer makes his/her case.

     Your thesis will be one of these three choices:

a. The article is mostly rhetorically strong.

b. The article is mostly rhetorically weak.

c. The article has both rhetorical strengths and weaknesses.

 

I. FIRST PORTFOLIO SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

     On Monday, Feb. 14, you must submit a folder that has the following materials. If any of these materials are absent, your portfolio will not be accepted:

1.      A one-page summary of the article you are analyzing.

2.      Notes on the article from the in-class writing assignment.

3.      A rough draft, due on Monday, Feb. 7. Remember: If you do not have a complete rough draft on the due date, you automatically can receive no higher than a “C+.”

4.      Peer Critique, which will be done in class

5.      Self Critique, which will be done in class.

6.      The final draft, which must be:

a.       Typed.

b.       Pages Numbered in upper right-hand corner.

c.       At least 3 full pages, with 11 or 12-point-font, and standard margin settings.

 

Remember: The rough draft is due on Monday, Feb. 7, and the first portfolio submission is due MONDAY, FEB 14.


ESSAY STRUCTURE:

I.   Introduction

     1. Write more than one sentence.

     2. Note the title of the article and the author.

     3. In parentheses, write the publication the article is from and its date.

     4. Mention the subject of the article, or what it concerns.

5. State your thesis—whether you will argue for the rhetorical strengths or

    weaknesses, or both.

     6. Give an indication for how you will proceed to prove your thesis.

 

II. Second Paragraph

     1. Write a brief summary of the article (½ to ¾ of a page), including:

a.       The article’s topic and thesis. Clearly state the writer’s thesis. Do not just say, “He talks about welfare reform” or “He talks about the need to reform the welfare system.” Better: “He argues that the welfare system needs to be reformed” or “Her main argument is that children are not being taught mathematics effectively in elementary schools.”

b.       Mention 3-4 SPECIFIC points the writer makes in the body of the article. Do not just say, “She talks about problems with city highways” or “He gives examples about children who are labeled learning disabled.” Better: “She claims that many city highways are too narrow” or “He points out that some educators in urban school districts unfairly label students learning disabled.”

·         NOTE: Do not use direct quotations in this paragraph. Paraphrase only, but put page numbers where the paraphrases come from in parentheses.

 

III.     Paragraphs 3 to Paragraph #6, or #7, or #10, if necessary—not just 3 paragraphs.

     1. Begin with a topic sentence that states the rhetorical aspect with which you are

         dealing.

     2. Give a specific example from the article that demonstrates that rhetorical aspect.

         QUOTE directly from the article.

     3. Discuss that example. Explain in your own words exactly what the example is

         saying and what it shows.

     4. State what your point is.

 

IV.     Second-to-last paragraph

     1. State what someone could say to refute your points about the article.

     2. Concede one or two of the opposition’s points.

     3. Rebut one or two of their points. In other words, come back to your thesis.

 

V. Conclusion

     1. Address the question, “So what? Why should anyone care about you analysis of

         this article? What should your readers get out of your analysis?”

NOTES:

 

RHETORICAL POINTS TO ADDRESS

     In analyzing the article you have chosen, look for some of the following aspects to discuss in the body of your essay. However, do NOT attempt to discuss all of them. Be selective. Discuss only those aspects that are pertinent to your article.

 

1.       Use of examples. Address: “Are the examples only drawn from personal experience? Are the examples vague or too general at all? Are there only examples which support the writer’s stance, and not which might challenge the writer’s point at all? How relevant is the particular example you cite? Does it help advance the writer’s thesis, or is it unnecessary at all? If you think the example is necessary, why is that PARTICULAR example necessary exactly? Does the writer only give examples, and no other pieces of evidence?

2.       Use of data or statistics. Ask yourself: Does the writer mention where he/she got the data? How current is the data? Doe the writer mention a margin of error or any shortcomings of the sample? Does the writer acknowledge any limitations to his/her data?

3.       Background information, such as historical information, defining terminology, data and statistics. Does the writer adequately supply such information, or does the writer fail to give enough background context for his/her subject?

4.       Use of informed, scholarly sources. Do not merely list them. Quote from the text in full to show where in the article the writer uses a particular source. Then, ask yourself: How current is this source? How is the source used—to back up a point or claim? Is the information from the source relevant, and if so, how so? Is this particular source really necessary?

5.       Presentation of other viewpoints or the opposition. Does the writer acknowledge other viewpoints besides his/her own? Does the writer do an adequate job of addressing such viewpoints?

6.       Qualifying one’s stance. Does the writer admit possible shortcomings or problems with his or her own stance? Is the writer humble or too overbearing?

7.       Rhetorical Fallacies. Does the writer make any of the following mistakes:

a.         Attack a person or a particular group unfairly.

b.         Make sweeping generalizations about a complex issue.

c.         Reduce a complex issue to an either/or assertion.

d.         Give only information that supports his/her stance, without acknowledging any evidence that challenges the writer’s stance.

 

V. CAUTIONARY NOTES:

1.    Avoid the criticism that the writer “contradicts him/herself.” If your article is scholarly in nature, that means the article has been revised and proofread extensively. It is highly unlikely that a writer has blatantly contradicted him/herself.

2.    Keep the type of article with which you are dealing in mind. For example, if the article is meant to be informative, you cannot criticize the writer for not giving his/her opinion.

3.    NEVER CRITICIZE AN ARTICLE FOR BEING BORING OR TOO DIFFICULT. You are supposed to be examining a scholarly article. It will most likely by its nature be somewhat complex or dense. Saying an article or its word choice is boring is a value judgment on your part and is not fair to the writer.

4.    Do not make speculative points, or points which assume anything. E.g. “He really makes the reader wonder”; “Readers can easily understand this point.”

5.    Stick strictly to rhetorical points. Use the list of rhetorical issues to address on the assignment handout. ONLY use these lists.

6.    Consider what you would say to someone who would argue against each point you raise. What could your opposition say, and how would you respond? Try to refute the opposition’s points, AND concede a point or two.

7.    Be Specific in stating how your essay will proceed. Do not just say, “I will discuss the writer’s use of specific examples and sources.” Better: “I will discuss the writer’s use of examples by focusing on her discussion of elementary schools. I will examine her use of sources in her section regarding success rates in the public school system.”

 

VI. EDITING POINTS:

1.       Make your thesis very clear in the opening paragraph of your essay. If need be, state directly, “I will argue...”

2.       Clearly defend each point you raise in the body of your essay with concrete examples from different parts of the article. Do not have all your evidence drawn from just a few pages.

3.       In discussing articles, use present tense. Do not say, “The author discussed,” but “The author discusses.”

4.       Do not use words that are too strong. E.g. “Totally agree”; “wrong”;

5.       Do not use the words “basically” and “obvious.” Your goal is to deal with the complexities of the articles. There should be nothing “obvious” or “basic” with what you are discussing.

6.       Avoid passive voice. Do not say, “Two experiences are given,” or “Specific examples are also used by the author in the article.” Better: “The author gives two experiences,” or “The authors uses specific examples.”

7.       After EVERY and ANY quotation you present, give its page number in parentheses: (30).

8.       Keep your target audience in mind, which is scholarly. Do not use common, everyday language.

9.       Make sure your essay does not complete discredit or dismiss an article. Equally important, do not completely praise an article. Find a middle ground. Remember: no article is completely perfect or completely terrible. All texts can be revised...