Project Two:

Rhetorical Analysis

Definition

In this assignment, apply what you have learned about rhetoric to a piece of discourse written by someone else. This exercise will give you an opportunity to express your critical reading ability and your knowledge of the ways in which rhetoric is put to use by other writers.

You will choose the subject of your rhetorical analysis from a list of approved texts posted on our course wiki. These 50+ possibilities encompass a variety of genres and registers (manifestoes, science fiction, autobiography, science, popular politics, etc.), broad subject matter (drugs, globalization, race theory and race relations, warfare, punk rock, genetics, feminism, civil rights, fashion, masculinity, technology, ecology, etc.), and politically run the gamut from the extreme right to the extreme left. However, they all contain a rhetorically inventive and rhetorically interesting argument. You may also request approval to write about a different text, including a movie or graphic novel (two mediums we will also practice analyzing in class).

The audience for this assignment is your classmates, your teacher, or any other readers of the argument you have chosen. You should not assume that your readers are familiar with the work you have chosen to analyze, or have read the work before turning to your paper. (You should attach a copy of the work to your completed analysis.) Nor can you assume that they are familiar with the issue the author raises. So part of your task will be to briefly review the contents of the work and to suggest to your audience why they, too, should be interested in the issue and the author's treatment of it. However, it is not sufficient for you to simply review the text. In an analysis, you are expected to explain the reasons for the effectiveness of the author's treatment of the issue at hand. Help your readers see how the argument works (or doesn't work).

Invention

By answering the following questions, you should generate a great deal of material that you can use in composing your rhetorical analysis. You will probably find that many parts of the text will reveal more than one aspect of its rhetoric.

1. What is the rhetorical situation?

2. What is the writer's ethos and how is it created?

3. What claim or proposition does the writer advance?

4. Considering the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs the writer assumes to be common ground with her or his audience, how strong or weak are these arguments?

5. How is the text arranged? What are its parts? What is their relation to one another?

6. What is the role of style and tone?

Composition

Your analysis should help readers understand why you find this piece rhetorically interesting. Your invention process will give you much material to consider and select from. You may organize your analysis around one or more of the rhetorical features you have examined. Whatever your claims about how the text works, remember always to ground them in the rhetorical situation: who is being addressed, when, where and why.

In general, you must present the claims of your analysis, provide whatever supplementary information about the issue may be necessary for your readers to understand those claims, and marshal the evidence which supports your analysis and its conclusions. The text itself is primary evidence for this analysis; in showing how language affects audiences, you will find that frequent specific references and quotations are vital.

Previous Student Examples

• Race According to Black No More: Entertaining a Paradox
• Fast Food does not come Cheap
• The Communist Manifesto: A Classic Rhetorical Argument

Grading Rubric

Primary traits and their relative value

• Thesis – 25%
• Rhetorical awareness in claims of support for thesis– 20%
• Analysis genre – 20%
• Support drawn from direct quotations and paraphrasing – 20%
• Standard spelling, grammar, and punctuation – 15%

Thesis

• 5.  Thesis statement arguable, specific, and answers the “So What?” question.  Also, it is concise and clearly located in the first couple paragraphs.
• 4.  Thesis statement is unarguable, but is specific, and it answers the “So What?” question.  It is still concise and clearly located in the first couple paragraphs.
• 3.  Thesis statement is unarguable, too broad, but answers the “So What?” question.  It is somewhat concise and is located in the first couple paragraphs.
• 2.  Thesis statement is unarguable, too broad, does not answer the “So What?” question, although it is somewhat concise and is located in the first couple paragraphs.
• 1.  Thesis statement is unarguable, too broad, does not answer the “So What?” question, and is not concise.  Something vaguely resembles a thesis statement.

Rhetorical awareness in claims of support for thesis

• 5.  Clear, logical order of good reasons that support the thesis statement while moving the argument forward, and topic sentences are clear, concise, and early in the paragraph.  Major claims are rhetorically aware of the text – who is being addressed, where, when, and why.
• 4.  Good organization of reasons, with good use of topic sentences.  Most claims demonstrate a good rhetorically awareness of the text.
• 3. Organization and logic are evident, but poor.  Some topic sentences are evident, but  may be unclear or difficult to find.  Claims are somewhat aware of     rhetorical situation of the text. 
• 2. Reasons offered in support of the thesis are poorly organized, few topic sentences connect back to thesis.  Claims are rarely rhetorically aware of the text.   
• 1. Some reasons are given in support of thesis, but organization is very poor.  Few topic sentences are evident, and most do not connect back to thesis.  Very little evidence of rhetorical awareness.

Analysis genre

• 5.  Paper summarizes the text’s argument, considers its exigence and context, discusses relevant examples drawn from the text to make an analytical claim. Emphasis is placed on analysis of the examples and summaries provided.
• 4.  Paper summarizes the text’s argument, considers its exigence and context, discusses relevant examples drawn from the text to make claims.  Some emphasis is placed on analysis of the examples and summaries provided. 
• 3.  Paper has more summary than analysis.  The analysis that is present considers exigence and context, and is drawn from relevant examples. 
• 2.  Paper is mostly summary, with very little analysis that occasionally considers exigence or context, and is drawn from a few examples. 
• 1.  Paper is almost entirely summary, with one or two examples of analytical argument.  These arguments are weak, and do not consider exigence or context. 

Support drawn from direct quotations and paraphrasing

• 5.   Each quote/paraphrase is framed with an introduction and an explanation of the quote’s relevance.  The student blends the author’s words with her/his own.  Proper parenthetical in-text citation is used following each quote/paraphrase.
• 4.  There is a good balance between quotation and discussion, and most quotes/paraphrases are framed with introductions and/or explanation of the quote’s relevance.  The student blends the author’s words with his/her own.  Few citation errors are evident.
• 3.  Some quotes are situated in a framework, transitions from citation to discussion are usually disjointed.  Student rarely blends the author’s words with her/his own.  There are many problems with citation, although the student shows some understanding of proper citation.
• 2.  Few quotes/paraphrases are framed.  Student rarely blends author’s own words with his/her own.  In-text citation is seldom executed correctly.
• 1.  Quotes and paraphrases are not framed.  Student does not blend the author’s words with his/her own.  No evidence that student grasps proper citation.

Spelling, punctuation, grammar, and mechanics

• 5.  Sentence variety, and very few spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors – none of which interfere with reading.
• 4.  Good variety of sentences, and few spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors – most of which do not interfere with reading.
• 3.  Some sentence variety, and a number of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors – many of which do not interfere with reading.
• 2.  Little sentence variety, and lots of spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors – the paper remains somewhat readable, though.
• 1.  Almost no sentence variety, and substantial spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors that regularly make reading very difficult.