Essay Project 1, continued:
Analyzing and Interpreting Rhetorical Stance
From Summary to Analysis
Now that you are skilled in the art of summary, you
have a good foundation to stand on as you write your
first paper.
It is vital that you recognize the main idea and main
points of a text so you can summarize that text;
however, to become a successful creator of your own
arguments, you must also recognize the rhetorical tools
used by great writers.
In other words, you know what they said, but how did
they say it?
Summary vs. Analysis
A Summary requires you to use your own words to
present the ideas of a text. A summary is shorter than
the original text.
A Rhetorical Analysis Essay requires you to move
beyond simply telling what a text says; you must also
discuss how the text is written. i.e. How does the author
make an argument/thesis?
What do you mean by
“rhetorical analysis”?
Rhetorical Analysis can sound confusing at first, so
let’s take a closer look.
Rhetoric is defined as “the art of persuasive or
effective speaking or writing.”
Analysis is the process of separating something into
its parts.
So, in a rhetorical analysis essay we take a close
look at an argument/thesis and examine how
different aspects of the essay reinforce that
argument.
Start with
a close
reading.
In other
words,
annotate
the text.
What should I look for while I
read?
First, ask yourself “What is the author trying to say in
this text?” In other words, what’s the point?
Then, identify the audience. The intended reader of a
text is very important in determining how effective the
author is at presenting his/her ideas.
What questions does the author address (directly or
indirectly)?
How does the author structure the text? What are the
key parts, and how do they relate to one another and
the thesis?
Preparing continued…
What evidence does the author use to support his
thesis? How persuasive is the evidence?
What strategies does the author use to generate interest
in the argument and to persuade readers of its
merit/importance?
Aristotle’s Appeals:
Ethos or The Ethical Appeal
Logos or The Logical Appeal
Pathos or The Emotional Appeal
The Appeals: Ethical
“Ethical appeals support the credibility, moral
character, and good will of the argument’s creator”
(Lunsford 168).
To identify ethical appeals, ask yourself if the
author is trustworthy, credible, and reliable. In
other words: Is this person an authority figure on
this subject?
The Appeals: Logical
The logical appeal includes facts to support the
argument, as well as “firsthand evidence drawn from
observations, interviews, surveys and questionnaires,
experiments, and personal experience. Additionally,
this appeal uses secondhand evidence drawn from
authorities, the testimony of others, statistics, and
other print and online sources” (Lunsford 168).
Example:
“It is well for us to remember that, in an age of
increasing illiteracy, 60 percent of the world’s illiterates
are women. Between 1960 and 1970, the number of
illiterate men in the world rose by 8 million, while the
number of illiterate women rose by 40 million” (from
Adrienne Rich’s “What Does a Woman Need to Know?”).
The Appeals: Emotional
“Emotional appeals stir our emotions and remind us of
deeply held values” (Lunsford 167).
Some critics say emotional appeals manipulate the
audience, but a good reader/interpreter can
determine the fairness of the appeal as it relates to
the argument.
Identifying the
Elements of an Argument
When analyzing an argument, look for these common features:
Claims (statements of fact, opinion, or belief that form the backbone
of an argument)
Reasons (These support the claims. Without good reasons, claims have
no foundation on which to stand.)
Assumptions (A writer expects his audience to hold certain
assumptions. Cultural differences often point to different
assumptions.)
Evidence (the support)
Qualifiers (words like few, often, in these circumstances, rarely, etc.. For
example: “Grading damages learning” is less precise than “Grading can
damage learning in some circumstances.”)
Identifying Fallacies
Fallacies are often viewed as flaws that damage the
effectiveness of an argument. But sometimes they work.
That’s why it’s important to look at every aspect of a
rhetorical situation before you write-off an argument as
“poor” or “unsound.”
Verbal Fallacies
Ad hominem—Makes a personal attack rather than
focusing on the issues.
Who cares what that fat loudmouth says about health
care, anyway?
Guilt by Association—Attacks someone’s credibility by
linking her with someone untrustworthy.
She does not deserve reelection; her husband had a
gambling problem.
False Authority—Using celebrities to testify to the
greatness of a product about which they probably know
very little.
He’s today’s greatest basketball player—and he banks at
National Mutual!
Fallacies, continued
Bandwagon—Suggests a great movement is underway—
everybody’s doing it, and you should too!
This new phone is everyone’s must-have item. Do you have
one yet?
Flattery—Tries to persuade readers by suggesting that they
are thoughtful, intelligent, or perceptive enough to agree
with the writer.
You have the taste to recognize the superlative artistry of Kay
Jewelry.
In-Crowd Appeal—Invites readers to identify with an
admired and select group.
Want to know a secret that more and more of Milledgeville’s
successful young professionals are finding out about? It’s
Mountain Brook Condominiums!
Fallacies, continued
Veiled Threat—Frightens readers into agreement by
hinting that they will suffer adverse consequences if
they don’t agree.
If Public Service Electric Company does not get an
immediate 15 percent rate increase, its services to you
may be seriously affected.
False Analogy—Makes a comparison between two
situations that are not alike in important respects.
The volleyball team’s sudden descent in the rankings
resembled the sinking of the Titanic.
Fallacies, continued
Begging the Question—A kind of circular argument
that treats a debatable statement as if it had been
proved true.
TV news covered that story well; I learned all I know
about it by watching TV.
Post Hoc Fallacy—Assumes that just because B
happened after A, it must have been caused by A.
We should not rebuild the town docks because every
time we do, a big hurricane comes along and damages
them.
Fallacies, continued
Non Sequitur—Attempts to tie together two or more
logically unrelated ideas as if they were related.
If we can send a spaceship to Mars, then we can discover
a cure for cancer.
Either-Or Fallacy—Insists that a complex situation can
have only two possible outcomes.
If we do not build the new highway, businesses
downtown will be forced to close.
Hasty Generalization—Bases a conclusion on too little
evidence or on bad or misunderstood evidence.
I couldn’t understand the lecture today, so I’m sure this
course will be impossible.
Fallacies, continued
Oversimplification—Claims an overly direct
relationship between a cause and an effect.
If we prohibit the sale of alcohol, we will get rid of binge
drinking.
Straw Man—Misrepresents the opposition by
pretending the opponents agree with something that
few reasonable people would support.
My opponent believes that we should completely do
away with the prison system. I disagree.
In your first essay…
…you will write a rhetorical analysis in which you’ll
apply what we’ve learned today to a text from Unit 1.
You’ll look at how the writer makes his or her
argument. What appeals are used? What fallacies?
What claims/reasons? Etc.
Questions?