If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.
You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!
(Adapted from Everything's an Argument, pgs. 97-98)
The Basics
a rhetorical analysis is a close reading of an argument to see whether and how it persuades
a rhetorical analysis works on two levels:
1. analysis of the text (i.e. the argument itself)
evaluation of appeals and support
2. analysis of the context (i.e. the factors influencing the argument)
audience
purpose
historical, cultural, social, political, and other situational factors
other voices in the larger conversation
Common Trouble Spots
context!
how to talk about ethos (pg. 106)
the role of style (pgs. 110; 116-7)
Putting It All Together
In groups of ~4:
read David Zinczenko's essay "Don't Blame the Eater" (in "They Say/I Say")
then answer the following questions about the essay
write down your answers
use specific examples from the essay
the questions:
1. What is Zinczenko's purpose? What does he hope to achieve?
2. What claims does the essay advance?
3. Who is the intended audience? How does Zinczenko appeal to that audience (think about tone and style)?
4. What logical appeals does Zinczenko use to make his arguments?
5. What emotional appeals does Zinczenko use to make his arguments?
6. Who is this Zinczenko guy, anyway? Does he seem trustworthy, credible, and knowledgeable to you? Why or why not?
7. What is the rhetorical context of the essay? What social, political, cultural, or other factors influence Zinczenko's arguments? What larger debates is he participating in and what opposing arguments does he respond to?
8. Finally, taking into account all of your other responses, do you find Zinczenko's argument persuasive? Why or why not?
Write a 250+ word comparing and contrasting the rhetorical techniques of the two articles. Responses need to be posted to the Take Two and Call Me in the Morning page by class time on Monday, September 13.
Read the instructions and student examples for Project One.
The purpose of these two essays is to persuade me, one way or another, into believing legalizing drugs is a good or bad thing. The “Drugs” essay by Gore Vidal definitely stuck to the point, and made clear, legitimate arguments throughout the essay. He strongly pushed the well-known theories that legalizing drugs would rid the country of all associated crime, and that men were created to be free, and this is a constriction of our rights. The “Don’t legalize drugs” essay written by Theodore Dalrymple got way off course into the dark abyss of unnecessary, unrelated details of an unforgiving novel of an essay. It was also a cruel punishment to bear reading the entire essay, due to the lack of stability and its off-topic shenanigans. From what I got out of it, legalizing said drugs would lead the US into an even steeper descent into the shit-hole of a valley our country is already in. I’d say the audience for both of these pieces would be the general masses in their entirety. Everyone from the neighborhood garbage rummaging bum named Gretchen, to your father, to Will Ferrell, to your neighbor’s newborn baby, to your middle school arithmetic teacher.
Gore Vidal pulls the experience card in stating he’s “disproved the Fu Manchu theory” by admitting he’s been in contact with (most) all of the drugs firsthand. Mr.Dalrymple, on the other hand, uses statistics and other methods of ethos to persuade us. Also, Theodore’s essay was very jumbled I felt, as I stated before, straying off topic with comparisons. Those are all fine and dandy, but when you get into a 7 paragraph comparison, it’s time to re-think your game plan. Those are just my thoughts, let me know if you agree or disagree.
Comments (3)
Alex said
at 8:42 pm on Sep 10, 2010
The purpose of these two essays is to persuade me, one way or another, into believing legalizing drugs is a good or bad thing. The “Drugs” essay by Gore Vidal definitely stuck to the point, and made clear, legitimate arguments throughout the essay. He strongly pushed the well-known theories that legalizing drugs would rid the country of all associated crime, and that men were created to be free, and this is a constriction of our rights. The “Don’t legalize drugs” essay written by Theodore Dalrymple got way off course into the dark abyss of unnecessary, unrelated details of an unforgiving novel of an essay. It was also a cruel punishment to bear reading the entire essay, due to the lack of stability and its off-topic shenanigans. From what I got out of it, legalizing said drugs would lead the US into an even steeper descent into the shit-hole of a valley our country is already in. I’d say the audience for both of these pieces would be the general masses in their entirety. Everyone from the neighborhood garbage rummaging bum named Gretchen, to your father, to Will Ferrell, to your neighbor’s newborn baby, to your middle school arithmetic teacher.
Alex said
at 8:42 pm on Sep 10, 2010
Gore Vidal pulls the experience card in stating he’s “disproved the Fu Manchu theory” by admitting he’s been in contact with (most) all of the drugs firsthand. Mr.Dalrymple, on the other hand, uses statistics and other methods of ethos to persuade us. Also, Theodore’s essay was very jumbled I felt, as I stated before, straying off topic with comparisons. Those are all fine and dandy, but when you get into a 7 paragraph comparison, it’s time to re-think your game plan. Those are just my thoughts, let me know if you agree or disagree.
Alex said
at 4:12 pm on Sep 12, 2010
my bad. wrong page. again haha
You don't have permission to comment on this page.