RWS 100: The Rhetoric of Written Argument
Instructor: Louie Centanni
Section: 62
Meeting Times: TTh 12:30-1:45
Meeting Place: MCN 109
Phone: N/A
Department Phone: (619) 594-6515
E-Mail: centanni@rohan.sdsu.edu
Office Hours: T 2:00-3:00 (or by appt.)
Office: AH 3178 or STARBUCKS on College Blvd. (I will announce during each Tues. class)
Prerequisites: All RWS 100 students must have satisfactory completion of the Lower Division
Writing Competency Requirement.
Required Textbooks:
 RWS 100 Course Reader (under Centanni or RWS 100)
 Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing
(2nd edition) W.W. Nortion & Co., 2012
 (optional, but recommended) Bullock, Richard and Francine Weinberg. The Little Seagull
Handbook. Norton, 2012.
Course Description, General Education Capacities/Goals, and RWS Learning Outcomes:
“I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me
at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don’t even invite me.” – Dave Barry
Our Learning Outcomes reflect the goals and capacities of the General Education Program. RWS
100 is one of several courses in the area of general education defined as “Communication and
Critical Thinking.” Focusing particularly on argument, this course emphasizes four essential
general education capacities: the ability to 1) construct, analyze, and communicate argument, 2)
contextualize phenomena, 3) negotiate differences, and 4) apply theoretical models to the real
world. This course advances general education by helping students understand the general
function of writing, speaking, visual texts, and thinking within the context of the university at
large, rather than within specific disciplines. In addition to featuring the basic rules and
conventions governing composition and presentation, RWS 100 establishes intellectual
frameworks and analytical tools that help students explore, construct, critique, and integrate
sophisticated texts.
Within this framework of four general capacities, the course realizes four closely related
subsidiary goals. These goals focus on helping students:
1)
2)
3)
4)
craft well-reasoned arguments for specific audiences;
analyze a variety of texts commonly encountered in the academic setting;
situate discourse within social, generic, cultural, and historic contexts; and
assess the relative strengths of arguments and supporting evidence.
Our student learning outcomes for RWS 100 are closely aligned with these goals and capacities,
and reflect the program’s overall objective of helping students attain “essential skills that underlie
all university education.”
Learning Outcomes for RWS 100: The following four outcomes describe the four main writing
projects or “assignment types” for the course. Students will be able to:
1) Describe and analyze an author’s argument, claims, project, support, and rhetorical
strategies;
2) Construct an account of an author’s project and argument and carry out small,
focused research tasks and find information that helps clarify, illustrate, extend, or
complicate that argument; use appropriate reference materials, including a
dictionary, in order to clarify their understanding of texts;
3) Construct an account of two or more authors’ projects and arguments and explain
rhetorical strategies that these authors—and by extension other writers—use to
engage readers in thinking about their arguments;
4) Construct an account of two authors’ projects and arguments in order to use
concepts from one argument as a framework for understanding and writing about
another.
The following points describe outcomes to work on throughout the course, to be attained over the
fifteen weeks. Students will be able to:
5) Describe elements of an argument—claims, methods of development, kinda of
evidence, persuasive appeals; annotate the work that is done by each section of a
written argument;
6) Use all aspects of the writing process—including prewriting, drafting, revising,
editing, and proofreading;
7) Choose effective structures for their writing, acknowledging that different purposes,
contexts, and audiences call for different structures; understand the relationship
between a text’s ideas and its structure;
8) Identify devices an author has used to create cohesion or to carry the reader
through the text; use metadiscourse to signal the project of the paper, and guide a
reader from one idea to the next in their writing;
9) Effectively select material from written arguments, contextualize it, and comment
on it in their writing;
10) Determine when and where a source was published, who wrote it, and whether it
was reprinted or edited; understand that texts are written in and respond to
particular contexts, communities, or cultures; examine the vocabulary choices a
writer makes and how they are related to context, community, culture, audience, or
purpose;
11) Respond in writing to ideas drawn from various cultures and disciplines, using the
activity of writing to clarify and improve their understanding of an argument;
12) Analyze and assess the relative strengths of arguments and supporting evidence;
13) Analyze and assess arguments made by visual texts; incorporate visual images into
their documents;
14) Craft well reasoned arguments for specific audiences;
15) Edit their writing for the grammar and usage conventions appropriate to each
writing situation;
16) Assign significance to the arguments that they read;
17) Reflect on how they wrote their papers, and revise arguments and findings based
on critical reflection.
Course Requirements:
 Three formal essays and one final project (TBD). First drafts will be required, and
the paper grade will be lowered one full letter grade if there is no first draft included
or if the revision has been inadequate, particularly if the revision consists primarily
of grammatical corrections.
 Writer’s Log, in which you reflect and work on improving a variety of issues in your
own writing.
 Selected readings from Course Reader (C.R.), They Say/I Say, and other texts.
Occasional quizzes will be both announced and “pop” (unannounced). Deal with it.
 Online discussion posts on Blackboard
 Class participation in small group activities, class discussions, and individual writing
conferences.
Grade Breakdown: Each paper will receive a letter grade based on the quality of the work it
contains, as will your final project. The value of the letter grade corresponds to the recommended
values in the SDSU catalog (A = 4.0, A- = 3.7, etc.). Participation will be assigned a letter grade that
takes into consideration both your attendance and your level of involvement in class sessions.
Your final grade will be determined by weighting those letter grades as follows:
First Paper: 20%
Second Paper: 25%
Third Paper: 20%
Final Project: 15%
Participation (inc. Writer’s Log): 10%
All Other Class Work: 10%
Policies:
Attendance: There is no substitute for attending class. Regular attendance will greatly elevate your
chances of performing well. Simply showing up for class, however, will not be enough. Active
participation does not have to mean answering every question, but I expect an optimistic, curious
learning environment in class each day founded in respectful discourse. For those who miss class
frequently, I will begin docking points after three (3) absences. Also, three tardies will be treated
as one absence.
Essays: Final drafts of all essays are to be submitted electronically through Blackboard’s
TurnItIn.com feature, before the class session starts, on the date specified. To be clear, if your
essay arrives in my inbox at 12:31 pm, it is considered late. In the event of a technological
meltdown, I will accept hard copies on the due date (not after). Papers will lose half of a letter
grade for each class session they are late. All essays must be typed, double-spaced, and must
adhere to MLA format (owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/). In the event of an
extreme emergency (zombie apocalypse, e.g.), I may consider (notice the rhetoric?) an extension,
but don’t count on it. In either event, communicate early and often. Rough drafts will be peerreviewed, so be prepared to bring FOUR hard copies to class on those days. Note: Technology
issues are not an emergency.
E-mail: This is not an online course. If you miss a session, I will not correspond with missed class
work via e-mail. You can find all readings on Blackboard. If you need any other class work or
notes, please ask a classmate. Also, when you correspond with ANY professor, send a formal email (i.e., proper capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and respectful greeting/signoff!). This is a
life skill that the text message is murdering.
Attaching Files to E-Mail: In the event that anything needs to be e-mailed directly to me, I must be
able to open the document the first time. Therefore, double-check your attachments and make
sure all files are either saved “.doc” (NOT “.docx”) or “.rtf”. This might sound petty, but trust me, it
is a necessary policy. I will make no exceptions to this policy.
Blackboard: I will post major announcements and any class readings not in your textbooks on
Blackboard. Please print out class readings and bring them to class unless otherwise noted. There
will also be some electronic discussions I ask you to join on Blackboard. I will discuss how this
works in class.
Electronics: Please leave all electronics off. This includes iPods, cell phones, laptops, and basically
anything besides a defibrillator. If you are in class listening to music or texting, I will ask you to
leave.
Student Athletes: If you are a student-athlete, please make arrangements early for sessions you
must miss. I was a student-athlete, so I am aware of the obligations that come with that territory.
However, this does not entitle you to miss work—it may entail turning in assignments early.
Plagiarism: All work in this course must be original. Plagiarism will result in serious consequences
ranging from grade reduction to failure in the class to expulsion from the college. For more
information on the university cheating and plagiarism policy, please visit: http://wwwrohan.sdsu.edu/dept/senate/policy/pfacademics.html. SDSU’s library also has a tutorial on how
to avoid plagiarism.
Respect: In this class (and really, in life), maintain what Jon Kabat-Zinn refers to as a “don’t know
mind.” Everyone has his or her own beliefs and values, and they are “right” in his or her mind.
Enter every discussion in this class accepting the notion that you may not be “right.” Respect the
views of others, even if you disagree with them. This is the first step toward intelligence and a
necessary prerequisite for wisdom, so begin cultivating that in my classroom (if you haven’t begun
already).
Problems: If you run into any problems or emergencies, don’t be shy—come to me as soon as
possible.
Help/Services:
Course Tutoring, ESL, & Writing Help: In addition to my office hours and our individual
conferences, RWS tutors are available to help you with your writing. Tutors are located in Love
Library. Contact the Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies at (619) 594-6515 for more
information on drop-in tutoring hours. Some help is available for ESL writers (if you need
significant ESL help, you can transfer to LING 100, which specializes in this area). If you have
questions or would like additional assistance with class concepts or projects, please visit me
during my office hours or make an appointment to speak with me.
Office Hours: I will hold weekly office hours. My office is in AH 3178, but it is shared with several
other instructors. I may change my “office” to the Starbucks across the street on College Blvd. In
this event, I will let you know during Tuesday’s class session. Hours are Tuesdays from 2:00-3:00
or by appointment.
Counseling: There are many events and situations that put additional stress on being a student.
Though I am extremely compassionate toward any incident of stress, anxiety, etc., I am not a
licensed therapist. SDSU has a center for Counseling & Psychological Services that is open to
students Monday through Friday from 8:00 am until 4:30 pm. Call (619) 594-5220 to set up an
appointment. C&PS (located in Calpulli Center, Room 4401) also, apparently, has a “Center for
Well-Being” with multiple stations for relaxation if you are feeling stressed.
Course Outline and Reading Schedule:
Please note that the following schedule is approximate, as dates and topics may shift as the
semester progresses. Please refer to Blackboard for current information regarding your
assignment due dates. Unless otherwise noted, all readings are to be completed outside of class
before the discussion date.
Tuesday, August 27:
Syllabus, Assignment Schedule, Introductions, E-mail rhetoric
Discuss, as a class, pages 11-12 in C.R.
Thursday, August 29:
What is Rhetoric? Basic of argumentation
Key Terms and Concepts (read pages 1-9 in C.R.)
They Say/I Say: Introduction (pages 1-14)
Page 23 in C.R. (“What does the text do?”)
Tuesday, September 3:
P.A.C.E.S., pathos, ethos, logos (page 77 in C.R.)
“Why Did Human History Unfold Differently On Different
Continents For The Last 13,000 Years?” by Jared Diamond
(pages 51-59 in C.R.)
Thursday, September 5:
Introduction to Rhetorical Strategies (pages 79-83 in C.R.)
“War & Wisdom” by Nicholas Kristof (pages 43-44 in C.R.)
Modeling the charting of a text / Group chart Diamond
Charting a text (page 17 in C.R.)
Tuesday, September 10:
Analyzing prompt, prewriting strategies for identifying
evidence and organizing
They Say/I Say: Chapter One (pages 19-28)
They Say/I Say: Chapter Two (pages 30-40)
Thursday, September 12:
Clarifying direction of First Paper
What, how, why?
Rifkin, “A Change of Heart About Animals” (pages 41-42 in C.R.)
Sample rhetorical analysis (from C.R.)
Tuesday, September 17:
Critical Responses to Diamond’s Text (on Blackboard)
Writing as a “conversation”
Thursday, September 19:
First Draft of Paper 1 Due. Peer Workshop; focus on
analysis of evidence
Tuesday, September 24:
Essay conferences. Class cancelled.
Thursday, September 26:
Essay conferences. Class cancelled.
Tuesday, October 1:
Final Draft of Paper 1 Due. Writer’s Log.
*They Say/I Say: Chapter Four (pages 55-67, in class)
Thursday, October 3:
View College, Inc.
Description of Second Paper
Paraphrasing/Quoting (page 25 and 27 in C.R.)
Metadiscourse/Relationships Between Texts (pages 87-90 in
C.R.)
Tuesday, October 8:
P.A.C.E.S.
College, Inc. Discussion
“Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?” by
Kevin Carey (pages 61-63 in C.R.)
They Say/I Say: Chapter 3 (pages 42-51)
They Say/I Say: Chapter 7 (pages 92-100)
Thursday, October 10:
Rhetorical Precis (pages 19-21 in C.R.)
Source Texts for Second Paper (all on Blackboard)
Tuesday, October 15:
Turn in Rhetorical Precis on two of the source texts
Source Texts for Second Paper (all on Blackboard)
Peer workshop on source texts
Thursday, October 17:
Charting connections between texts (class discussion)
Tuesday, October 22:
TBD
Thursday, October 24:
First Draft of Paper 2 Due. Peer Workshop; focus on
Incorporation of quotes (quality, citation, etc.)
Tuesday, October 29:
Essay conferences. Class cancelled.
Thursday, October 31:
Essay conferences. Class cancelled.
Tuesday, November 5:
Optional class/Office hours.
*They Say/I Say: Chapters 5-6 (pages 68-91, in class)
Thursday, November 7:
Final Draft of Paper 2 Due. Writer’s Log.
Description of Third Paper
Rhetorical Analysis examples (The Daily Show, in class)
“Do We Have the Courage to Stop This?” by Nicholas Kristof
(pages 45-46 in C.R.)
Tuesday, November 12:
“Transcript of speech on Newtown Shooting 12/21/2012” by
Wayne LaPierre (pages 65-68 in C.R.)
“The Riddle of the Gun” by Sam Harris (pages 69-76 in C.R.)
Rhetorical Analysis exercise, P.A.C.E.S
Thursday, November 14:
Student Rhetorical Analysis of LaPierre (on Blackboard)
More on Rhetorical Strategies (print and media ads)
Tuesday, November 19:
Background Research on LaPierre, Harris, and issues
presented
TBD
Thursday, November 21:
TBD
Tuesday, November 26:
First Draft of Paper 3 Due. Focus on synthesizing ideas from
multiple texts into one “argument”
Thursday, November 28:
Thanksgiving Day. No class.
Tuesday, December 3:
Essay conferences. Class cancelled.
Thursday, December 5:
Essay conferences. Class cancelled.
Tuesday, December 10:
Final Draft of Paper 3 Due.
Tuesday, December 17:
Final Project Due (Reflection Paper, Extension of previous
paper, Writing portfolio, e.g.)
MAJOR ASSIGNMENTS
First paper: Constructing an Account & Analysis of an Argument
Length: 4-6 pages
Due: 10/1 (final draft), 9/19 (first draft)
Jared Diamond addresses some of the “big” questions of human history, such as why history
unfolded differently on different continents, and the role geographical factors played in the
rise and dominance of particular societies. Diamond’s “Why Did Human History Unfold
Differently On Different Continents For The Last 13,000 Years?” is based on a talk he gave in
1997 to members of Edge Educational Foundation, an interdisciplinary association of scholars
and technologists. His texts summarizes some of the arguments set forth in his book Guns,
Germs and Steel.
Criteria for Evaluation:
1. Describe Diamond’s project and argument, and what you see as his most
important or interesting sub-claims, explaining how these sub-claims relate to
the main claim.
2. Describe how Diamond organizes his text and how this influences what he has to
say.
3. Analyze the ways in which he supports his claims, and the moves or strategies
he employs to advance these claims.
4. Write the paper as if addressing a reader unfamiliar with Diamond’s text.
5. Comment on how this text is significant—what difference it might make to
readers.
6. Use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the
next, and be thoroughly edited so that sentences are readable and appropriate for
an academic audience.
Key Learning Outcomes: students will be able to describe and analyze an author’s argument,
claims, project, support, and rhetorical strategies.
*
*
*
Second paper: Gathering Information and Managing Sources
Length: 6-8 pages
Due: 11/5 (final draft), 10/24 (first draft)
In “Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?”, Kevin Carey examines the
growth of for-profit universities. He claims that these institutions need to be reformed, but also
have an important role to play in higher education. For this paper you will select at least two
outside texts that make arguments that connect with Carey’s. You will use these texts to
illustrate, clarify, challenge, qualify, extend, or complicate one of the arguments advanced in
“Why Do You Think They’re Called For-Profit Colleges?”
Criteria for Evaluation:
1. Describe Carey’s project and argument, and what you see as his most important
or interesting claims, explaining how these claims relate to the argument.
2. Signal the topic and give a clear indication of how your paper will proceed.
3. Locate claims and/or evidence from (at least) two outside sources that connect
with the argument.
4. Analyze these claims/evidence in order to show how they illustrate, challenge,
extend, clarify, or complicate arguments found in “Why Do You Think…”
5. Present evidence that explains in detail how these texts illustrate, challenge,
extend, clarify, or complicate Carey’s argument.
6. Use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the
next, and be thoroughly edited so that sentences are readable and appropriate for
an academic audience.
Key Learning Outcomes: students will be able to construct an account of an author’s project
and argument and carry out small, focused research tasks to find information that helps
clarify, illustrate, extend, challenge, or complicate that argument; use appropriate reference
materials in order to clarify their understanding of an argument.
*
*
*
Third paper: Explaining Rhetorical Strategies
Length: 4-6 pages
Due: 12/10 (final draft), 11/26 (first draft)
The tragic shooting at Sandyhook Elementary School in 2012 led to a national discussion about
gun rights and regulations. One of the most prominent speeches was given by Wayne
LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA). A number of other
authors added their voices to the debate, including Sam Harris, who wrote “The Riddle of the
Gun.”
Criteria for Evaluation:
1. Describe the authors’ projects and arguments.
2. Signal the topic and give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed.
3. Describe the strategy/strategies, provide interpretation and analysis of how the
strategies work, and explain why the authors chose to use these strategies
(purpose/audience).
4. Explain how the strategies advance the authors’ arguments.
5. Analyze the effectiveness of the claims and strategies.
6. Present ample evidence to support the analysis of rhetorical strategies.
7. Use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the
next, and be thoroughly edited so that sentences are readable and appropriate for
an academic audience.
Key Learning Outcomes: students will be able to construct an account of authors’ projects and
arguments while explaining the rhetorical strategies that these authors—and by extension
other writers—use to engage readers in thinking about their arguments.
*
*
*
Final project: TBD
Length: TBD
Due: 12/17 (final draft)
There will be several options for our final project, ranging from a 4-6 page reflection paper, a
comprehensive writing portfolio from the semester (with a 1-2 page reflection), or creative
suggestions for your own personal final project. We will discuss this as the semester
progresses!
Criteria for Evaluation:
1. See three previous projects for details. Evaluation will depend on your project.
Key Learning Outcomes: students will be able to produce a meaningful final project
displaying the growth in their rhetorical skills of analysis and evaluation.