Rhetorical Analysis p. 1 Talking Back Ch.docx

Rhetorical Analysis p. 1
Talking Back
Chapter 5: Rhetorical Analysis
September 20, 2014
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS: AN OVERVIEW
The Elements of a Rhetorical Analysis
Sample Rhetorical Analysis
PREPARING TO DRAFT
Entering a Conversation and Finding a Subject
Understanding the Writing Situation
Creating a Plan
DRAFTING

Drafting the Introduction
Drafting the Body
Drafting the Conclusion
REVISING
Revision Checklist
5
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS: AN OVERVIEW
Rhetorical Analysis is an evaluation. It measures how well an
act of communication
succeeds at delivering its message. Rhetorical analyses look at
how visual texts such as
ads convince us to buy things and how written texts such as

newspapers convince us to
support a presidential candidate. In the following example, how
does the communication
happen and who is doing the evaluating?
Imagine a sixteen year old at the favorite Friday night hangout
with his friends.
He notices that certain someone, the one he’s had a secret crush
on for months, years
maybe, walk in with some friends. She looks in his direction
and smiles. He asks himself,
"Is that smile for me? Is she smiling at someone else? What do
I do? Brave the pack and
walk over to her?" He's analyzing this act of communication,
trying to decipher the
message and decide how to respond. The choices he makes
depend on his analysis of the
rhetorical situation.
As consumers we regularly encounter ads; messages developed
by writers, artists,
and marketing personnel that attempt to convince us to buy. Do
you ask how the half-
naked female next to the Camero is supposed to get you to buy
the Camaro? How does the

ad work? What content is included and why? Who is the ad
directed to? These are the
questions writers pose in a rhetorical analysis. At its most
basic, a rhetorical analysis
What's a
Rhetorical
Analysis?
How do they
Enter Written
Conversations?
What Basic
Parts Make Up
a Rhetorical
Analysis?
How to get a
Rhetrorical
Analysis
Written?
Rhetorical Analysis

breaks down the components of a rhetorical situation and
examines the how, why, and
effectiveness of communication.
THE ELEMENTS OF A RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
A successful rhetorical analysis has four components, listed
and described in the chart
below. Use this table to understand the components of the
sample rhetorical analysis that
follows and to begin thinking about the rhetorical analysis you
will compose.
Table 5.1 Elements of a Rhetorical Analysis
ELEMENT DESCRIPTION
1. Description of the rhetorical
text being analyzed
The text to be analyzed should be clearly identified,
summarized,
and described along with its significance and the writer’s reason
for examining it. This information can serve as an introduction.
2. Explanation of the evaluation
criteria
The criteria are the principles or standards by which the writer
judges the text. An explanation of and rationale for the chosen

rhetorical strategies are one part of the body of the essay.
3. Findings and judgments The biggest part of a rhetorical
analysis is the discussion of how
the text measures up to the rhetorical criteria; this constitutes
the
findings.
4. Recommendations and "So
What?
Often the final part of the essay makes a recommendation based
on the findings. So what is the reader to do with these insights?
SAMPLE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
In "Mike Rose Plays with Fire" student Rebecca Rossi analyzes
a piece written by Dr.
Mike Rose, professor at UCLA, about the state of
developmental education in the United
States.
Across the country, government initiatives have been put in
place with the
intentions of bettering our nation’s elementary and high schools
and ensuring
each child meets set standards in core areas of study. Such
efforts are the No
Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top. Unfortunately, there
are many children
still left behind when it comes to say, fractions or writing, and

not everyone makes
it to the top with grammar. That means inevitably, there are
underprepared
students in college, often taking courses that they will receive
no credit for due to
the material’s classification as basic skills or remediation. In
order to succeed,
these students must conquer what eludes them. That is where
the area of basic
skill instruction and college level remediation takes the stage.
Such an area of
education and study was found to be insufficient though,
according to author
Mike Rose.
The archaic school of thought on basic skill instruction and
college level
remedial education has been excitedly torched by author Mike
Rose. The situation
ignited when Rose wrote a commentary in The Chronicle of
Higher Education
titled, “The Smithsonian of Basic Skills.” He later posted it on
his blog, in addition
to an ethos laden opening note.
The opening note is what makes this piece believable. It is
necessary for his
audience, composed mostly of people with a background or
knowledge in the
education field, to have his qualifications up front. Due to the
audience’s
familiarity with basic skill instruction, college level

remediation, government
initiatives, and system failings, Rose is able to forgo lengthy
definitions and
clarifications. Additionally, his constant burn them up, cool
them down approach
is accepted because of his initial statement of experience. He
tells of his career,
“as a teacher, developer of curriculum, program administrator,
or researcher.”
Obviously, Rose should be given some room to speak. The
audience, now aware of
his qualifications, refrains from dismissing his bold declarations
as the ramblings
of a pot smoking attention seeker.
In addition to the statement of experience, Rose admits to the
audience
that he is going to play with their minds a bit in the way of
issues and epic failures
with the current handling of basic skills and remedial education.
On such matters,
the audience is greatly varied on what should be done. To
overcome that obstacle,
Rose essentially prepares them to be surprised instead of rudely
surprising them.
That way, maybe everyone can still work together towards
providing education
indiscriminately by the end of the piece.
Bold diction, reiteration of credibility, and a brutally honest
tone create a
fire which burns windows into the dark, closed institution of
basic skill and
remedial education, allowing the call to be heard for the case of
knowledge being
provided indiscriminately.
To maintain his audience’s attention, Rose employs a
deliverance style

similar to blowing glass. He heats them up through bold diction,
bending the
audience into the right balance of confusion and disbelief, and
right after cools
them down, in an honest tone, with credible explanations for his
reasoning.
After summarizing the need for remedial education and the
failings of
dealing with academic under preparation in the opening
paragraph, Rose begins
his game by proposing, “…that a wealthy foundation or
consortium of foundations
support with great fanfare a National Center for the Study and
Teaching of Basic
Skills.” At first, the audience is led to believe his choice of
diction was the building
blocks of a mass exaggeration. Most individuals would hardly
consider basic-skills
instruction deserving of a National Center, due to its
connotations. Basic registers
as easy, elementary, and obvious, while a National Center seems
more befitting
for something that takes great skill, specialization, and focus.
The fire is lessened
when Rose slams them with his support for such opinion. In
addition to the
reiteration of his experience, “I have worked in “basic skills,”
“remedial
education,” or “developmental education,” for 40 years...,” he
tells how the real
issues plaguing such education, in addition to inadequate
funding, are “status and

status-quo thinking.” The audience, now full of red hands,
endure even more
brutal honesty as Rose mentions how the teaching of basic skills
is done by “part-
time instructors—people with little status themselves” to the,
“intellectually
stigmatized.” While not yet convinced of the remedial/basic-
skills area of
education’s need for equal treatment, the audience’s interest is
sustained long
enough to endure a greater degree of argument.
Perhaps even more jolting is Rose’s next declaration, in which
he resolutely
states, “…basic-skills work represents as rich an area of study
and as intellectually
engaging an arena of teaching as you’ll find.” Again, the
audience suspects
another hyperbole. How could basic-skills instruction, with its
repetition and
simplicity, provide a wealth of study material that can maintain
one’s interest? He
gives an example of a student struggling with a basic skill, such
as fractions. Rose
then abates them with the possibilities of study through asking a
series of
rhetorical questions, such as what formal or informal
mathematical skills does one
have, how did the problem start, how can the cognitive history
be accessed and
the issue remedied etc.,. He then says, “Suddenly, we are
dealing not only with a
challenging instructional problem, but also with a number of
fascinating issues in
mathematics education, cognitive science, the philosophy of

mind, and social
theory.” He is showing his audience that the teaching of basic-
skills carry their
own form of complexity to them. Rose is arguing for a place in
education for that
complexity to be acknowledged, studied, and understood. For
remedial education
and its recipients to be given the same respect and consideration
of resources and
funds that other areas of education receive.
Later, Rose issues a puzzling proclamation when he says,
“Thus we need an
institution devoted to basic-skills instruction that is equal to our
great national
intellectual and cultural institutions. A Smithsonian of Basic
Skills. A National
Science Foundation of Remediation.” Heard alone, such
statements would invite
one to crumble up the paper it was printed on. Especially as he
gets more
eccentric with wanting to hold a press conference at the White
House and getting
Nobel laureates involved. These ideas may heat up a room as
they can be taken as
extreme and useless. However, he cools down the excitement by
saying we
should, “Do whatever it takes symbolically to unsettle our
class-based tunnel
vision about this work.” Rose continues extolling proof of its
necessity by bringing
up the recent interest in integrating reading, writing and
arithmetic teaching into
a variety of subjects, such as “introductory social sciences,
health care, the
construction trades—.” He argues that the center could be the
solution to

teaching across disciplines. This is supported by his truthful
statement that,
“English majors aren’t trained to talk with sociologists, let
alone welders.” Using
an honest tone during this and other such explanations
maintains his credibility.
His declarations have become more extravagant as the piece
progressed, but
following them up with such a tone keeps readers anchored and
receptive to the
piece.
Another wise decision Rose made was to acknowledge the
counter
argument. Opponents feel that instead of “enshrining”
remediation, we should
focus efforts on “eradicating” the need for it. Rose agreed that
while elementary
and high school education need improvement, it is ridiculous to
expect all children
to be “”at grade level”” or “”college ready.”” His proof is the
failure of federal
school reform initiatives such as Race to the Top and No Child
Left Behind. Rose
blames “inequalities of resources and opportunity in America”
as the reasons why
the need to provide basic-skills instruction persists, despite
previously stated
Federal efforts.
Rose successfully conveys the need to provide knowledge
indiscriminately

through a variety of rhetorical tools. His deliverance creates
scandal with bold
diction and then extinguishes it with explanations given in an
honest tone. His
own fantastic ideas, backed by his reiteration of credibility, are
explosive enough
to act as a catalyst in the audience’s own mind. Whether in
agreement with Rose
or not, they are left thinking differently with regards to
providing education
indiscriminately.
Thinking and Composing: Reading a Rhetorical Analysis . Find
a rhetorical analysis of a
visual text such as the Barack Obama Hope Poster. Identify the
criteria the author has
chosen to measure the success of the visual text. Does the
writer use typical criteria?
Does the writer use any unusual criteria? Notice how the writer
organizes the criteria and
findings. What do you learn from reading this rhetorical
analysis? Try these web sites:
<http://prezi.com/jicdxch0cclj/obama-poster-rhetorical-
analysis/>
<http://harlotofthearts.org/issues/issue_2/mccorkle/obama-
poster/che.htm>
<http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=35583>
Below is the original article written by Mike Rose and
published in the
Chronicle of Higher Education and in his blog on Friday,
August 13, 2010.

"The Smithsonian of Basic Skills" by Mike Rose
Introduction:
This is a commentary that was published earlier this week in
The Chronicle of Higher Education.
I’ve been involved in college-level remedial or basic skills
education for most of my career, as a
teacher, developer of curriculum, program administrator, or
researcher. And I am once again
participating in a study that includes basic skills instruction.
After all these years, I continue to
be struck by the way social class biases and disciplinary and
institutional status dynamics keep
restricting our pedagogical imagination. We need a sea-change
in the way we think about
instruction in basic skills.
Concluding with
what Rose
achieves.
In this commentary I try to jostle us into thinking differently
and particularly to see the
class bases at play in our society’s typical approach to remedial
education. I draw on some of
our grand symbols of intellectual achievement—the
Smithsonian, Nobel Laureates—to help in
this tweaking of perception. See what you think.

* * *
The nation has woken up to the fact that a large number of
Americans of high-school age and
older are unable to read, write, or do mathematics beyond an
elementary level, and that the
limitation profoundly restricts their opportunity to pursue
further schooling or occupational
training. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching recently completed an in-
depth study of the problem in California community colleges,
and the Lumina Foundation and
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have been committing
research-and-development money
to help underprepared young adults succeed in college. The
issue is also on the agenda of the
president and the Department of Education.
But, important as such efforts are, they do not get to the heart
of the problem. We need
something grander and more comprehensive, something that will
lead to a conceptual sea
change in the way the nation understands and deals with the
issue of academic
underpreparation.
I propose that a wealthy foundation or consortium of
foundations support with great fanfare a
National Center for the Study and Teaching of Basic Skills.
Such a center would have a long-
term effect on education, social justice, and economic
prosperity.
I have worked in and studied what is variously called "basic
skills," "remedial education," or
"developmental education" for 40 years, and it is clear to me

that—on par with inadequate
financial support—the biggest problems facing the work are
status and status-quo thinking.
Many people, particularly in the academic departments where
future instructors do their
graduate study, see the teaching of basic skills as grunt work.
Furthermore, basic skills are
taught to the intellectually stigmatized, those students who,
unlike their instructors, have
done poorly in the subjects and possibly failed them. To make
matters worse, a significant
amount of basic-skills teaching is done by part-time
instructors—people with little status
themselves.
Such problems of status and institutional structure interact with
flawed beliefs about cognition
and motivation that run throughout basic-skills instruction. One
of those flawed beliefs is that
the way to remedy a problem is to focus on the smallest units of
the problem—in the case of
writing, it would be rules of grammar, often treated out of
context in a workbook or in an
entire course focused only on the sentence. In such settings,
students don't get to work with
language in a way consonant with the intellectual and rhetorical
demands of the writing they
will have to do in college. Another false belief is that
underprepared students' motivation and
self-esteem will be hurt by a more-challenging curriculum. That
is a one-dimensional, not to

mention patronizing, understanding of motivation. There's no
scientific basis for such beliefs,
but they persist.
I can say without reservation that basic-skills work represents
as rich an area of study and as
intellectually engaging an arena of teaching as you'll find. If a
young adult is having trouble
with fractions, for example, how did his misunderstandings and
flawed procedures develop?
What formal or informal mathematical knowledge does he have
that can be tapped? How
does one access that cognitive history and lead the student to
analyze and remedy it? How,
then, does one proceed to teach in a way appropriate to an adult
with that history? Suddenly
we are dealing not only with a challenging instructional
problem, but also with a number of
fascinating issues in mathematics education, cognitive science,
the philosophy of mind, and
social theory.
Furthermore, basic-skills instruction, if done well, requires a
serious consideration of
disciplinary basics that tend to be taken for granted. In teaching
remedial writing, I have found
myself thinking about and trying to explain the origins and
purpose of the conventions of
literacy—such as grammar and other mechanics, and written
forms like the list, the chart, and
the narrative. And there's the connection between the solitary
act of writing and the audience.
And the complex relationship between speech and writing. But
we tend not to appreciate the
intellectual content of the work, because of professional and

institutional bias.
Thus we need an institution devoted to basic-skills education
that is equal to our great national
intellectual and cultural institutions. A Smithsonian of Basic
Skills. A National Science
Foundation of Remediation. We should start with a news
conference at the White House.
Place the center in a grand old building. Pack its advisory board
with Nobel laureates. Do
whatever it takes symbolically to unsettle our entrenched class-
based tunnel vision about this
work.
But the real action would come once the center was up and
running. Educators are doing
effective and exciting work in basic-skills classrooms and
programs across the country, and the
center would document and disseminate those exemplars. The
center would also bring
together subject-area experts and successful teachers to develop
curricula, particularly across
disciplines. Today there is great interest, for example, in
integrating mathematics and reading-
and-writing instruction into diverse subjects—introductory
social sciences, health care, the
construction trades—but it is hard to do in a substantial way.
English majors aren't trained to
talk with sociologists, let alone welders, so the center would
become a think tank in teaching
across disciplines.
Along with the limitations of standard-fare curriculum,
underprepared students often get stuck
with an ossified sequence of remedial courses. So a number of
colleges are experimenting with

an accelerated sequence, or with the aforementioned attempts to
embed basic-skills
instruction into subject-area courses, or with various
concurrent-enrollment arrangements
with local high schools. The center would provide guidance to
colleges trying to create such
structural change.
It would also take the lead in bringing to the policy arena the
fundamental but neglected issues
of teaching and learning, for the basic-skills constituency alone
has little political clout. And the
center would award teaching fellowships and stipends, both to
recruit promising young people
into the field and to enhance the career development of those
with proven talent.
Like the Smithsonian and the National Endowment for the
Humanities, the center would
support or organize programs for the public. Some of those
programs would be regional,
perhaps in libraries or occupational centers. And some would be
national—including public-
radio and -television productions, like documentaries on
exceptional basic-skills programs; or,
in another vein, animated specials with Pixar-style whimsy: A
Brief History of
Punctuation or The Short, Happy Life of the List.
Some people will contend that our nation's efforts should go
toward eradicating the need for

remediation, not enshrining it. Of course we need to be doing
everything possible to improve
elementary and secondary education. But it is magical thinking
to believe that all children will
be "at grade level" or "college ready" in a decade, as promised
by Race to the Top and No Child
Left Behind, the two major federal school-reform initiatives of
our era. At no time in our
history, or the history of any industrialized nation, has that goal
been achieved. As long as we
have inequality of resources and opportunity in America, we
will need to provide multiple
occasions for people to gain what eluded them earlier.
If we do this work well, with adequate resources and serious
intellectual commitment, we
would improve our ability to democratize knowledge without
trivializing it, and make it
accessible to a broad sweep of our citizenry.
PREPARING TO DRAFT
Your detective mission-- should you accept it--is to take on a
piece of writing as
Sherlock Holmes and Watson: to study and analyze the way a
text was put together and to
find out why it's done this way In a rhetorical analysis, it's not
enough to simply agree or
disagree, but rather you must dig deeply into the piece, looking
for the hidden treasures it
will yield. Make the piece talk to you and to the reader of your
rhetorical analysis.

Analyze the text and force it to tell you why it was written and
for whom, and then build a
case to pass judgment and convict. Compose your rhetorical
analysis by assembling your
findings and proving them to your audience.
As writers, we should regularly analyze the work of others.
Much like an architect
is familiar with how buildings are built, so writers must be
aware of the different methods
with which a piece of writing is put together. Using the
rhetorical lens to look at a piece of
writing allows for a clearer look at the makeup of any piece of
writing.
ENTERING A CONVERSATION BY FINDING A TEXT AND
SUBJECT
The rhetorical analysis is a great place to talk with other writers
about what we’re all
doing, how it all comes together in the end, or to pull apart and

criticize someone else’s
argument. A writer chooses rhetorical analysis to:
1. Read like a writer and comprehend a piece of writing
2. Examine how an author writes
3. Criticize or praise a piece of writing
4. Disagree with an argument and enter a written conversation
With a rhetorical analysis you can enter a conversation about
the subject of writing and an
author's abilities or about the subject that author is addressing.
Chose a text to analyze that
interests you and you want to figure out how it works.
UNDERSTANDING THE WRITING SITUATION
In preparing to write, also consider your rhetorical situation:
whom you are writing
for and your purpose. Purpose and audience drive writing.
While you are analyzing the
rhetorical choices another writer has made in the piece you are
analyzing, you will also be
making rhetorical choices in the rhetorical analysis you are
composing. Because writers
enter written conversations to convince an audience of
something, it's good for writers to
analyze those audiences and clarify the purposes. Take time to

answer the following
questions about the purpose, audience, context, and voice for
your rhetorical analysis so
that you can make informed decisions about your choice of
topic, information to include,
order of information, visuals, writing style, and word choice.
Purpose
Begin by identifying and analyzing your reasons for writing.
Why are you putting
words on the page? There can be a myriad of reasons. Your
teacher has told you to do
this and you want a good grade, so you remember that you were
interested in a piece you
read about Frederick Douglass in history class. Your professor
said that the Narrative of
the Life of Frederick was propaganda used by the abolitionists.
You decide to analyze
Douglass's narrative to show your classmates how Douglass
expertly crafted a voice of
quiet realism that allowed him to show the horrors of slavery
and the evilness of the white
slave owners without really calling them evil. You decide to
explain in your rhetorical

analysis that his audience was the white religious groups of the
North.
Turning to the text you will be analyzing, first think through
the following questions
to narrow the focus of your purpose.
u choosing this text to analyze?
conversation?
analysis?
ur audience by doing
this rhetorical analysis?
Next, complete the template below to clearly identify the
purpose(s) of your rhetorical
analysis.
In a nutshell, I am claiming that this rhetorical analysis will
show how Frederick
Douglass crafted his autobiography with an exacting narrative
and description _,

(what content of rhetorical will
show )
so my audience will see how Douglass composed an
argument against slavery.
(how audience will be impacted)
Audience
When writers want to enter a conversation, they must identify
and evaluate the
audience they want to impact in order to develop content,
structure that content, and
construct a voice that speaks to that audience. To whom are
you writing? Classmates?
The author in question? This will clearly set apart what it is
you’re trying to do and may
help you define your purpose more clearly. If you’re writing
for your classmates, you may
focus on the aspects of the writing you find particularly
troubling or engaging. If you’re
writing for the author, you may want to be sure to clarify places
where you take exception
to his/her choices, and explain what would make the piece work
better. If you are writing

it for your teacher and classmates, you may have very specific
guidelines.
In the following questions, think through how your audiences'
attitudes, beliefs, and
experiences that might influence how they respond to your
rhetorical analysis.
How much background
and explanation will you need to give them?
you're analyzing?
to read and agree with
your analysis?
insight and intelligence?
Change their opinion of an important issue? Give you a grade?
Submit it to a state-
wide, student journal in your field?
Voice
In the writing situation that you describe above for your
rhetorical analysis, what
voice will you construct? What personality and attitude will
you need to project in order

to achieve your purpose with your audience? In this genre the
writer becomes a detective.
You are the investigator, looking to discover how and why a
text communicates its
message. How do you represent this inquisitive nature to your
readers? How will you get
your readers to follow your analysis? Will you need to be a
dispassionate observer or
passionate advocate? Likely you will need to be very clear and
very observant. How will
you get that across? Discuss voice with your writing partners
and make some notes about
the voice and its characteristics that will best fit your rhetorical
analysis.
Table 5.2 : Posing Problems about the Writing Situation for
Your Rhetorical Analysis
CREATING A PLAN
Do you have a strategy to get it written? Yes--it's a good idea
to have a plan,
especially if you have a deadline. Begin your project by

planning how to get it finished.
Get out your calendar, note any due dates from your instructor,
and set aside blocks of
time for reading, thinking, and writing. Working backward
from the final due date, rough
out a schedule for the major stages in the process.
As you plan for your rhetorical analysis, keep in mind that your
work will focus
mainly on the text you are analyzing with maybe a little
research on the author or place the
text is published.
A successful plan takes honesty about how you work, and what
writing and thinking
tasks take you longer than others. Take into consideration your
writing habits, strengths,
and weaknesses as you generate a tentative plan. Use the
following chart to help you think
through what you need to accomplish and when.
Table 5.3: A Successful Plan
Task to be Done Date Due
Due date for final draft
Due date for rough draft

Compose Draft
Decide on the rhetorical elements to
evaluate
Research author and place of
publication
Compose Summary of article/text
Analyze the rhetorical situation of your
rhetorical analysis to determine:
--What conversations are you
joining?
--What is the purpose of your
rhetorical analysis?
--Who is your audience?
--What persona do you want to
present?
This analysis and understanding leads to
decisions and choices about:
– Information to include
– Order of that information
–

DRAFTING
The drafting stage in your writing process is where you get your
ideas down
onto the page. This draft does not have to be perfect. You will
have time to
craft your draft later in the revision stage.
The following sections walk you through the parts of the first
draft from
introduction to conclusion, but you might find it easier to draft
the body of
your rhetorical analysis before the introduction. As you develop
your ideas in
the body, the message you wish to communicate in the
introduction will get
clearer. Remember that writing is a recursive process in which
we can shift
back and forth between steps as necessary. Table 5.3 offers an
overview of an
entire first draft. Following the table is more detailed
information, along with
questions to guide you through your essay’s introduction, body,
and

conclusion.
Table 5.3 Rhetorical Analysis Structure
Introduction
ent stated as a thesis
statement
Criteria 1, 2, 3, etc.
standard you have established
criteria if it is not generally
accepted
subject to this criteria

measures up
support this measure
Successes of the Subject
Criteria
Criteria
Failures of the Subject
Criteria
Criteria
Order that Rhetorical
Strategies Are
Encountered in the Text
Strategy encountered 1
st
nd
rd

th
Judgment and Recommendations
ct based on these findings
evaluation and judgment
these judgments
Conclusion
e your
reasoning
reader
DRAFTING THE INTRODUCTION
In the introduction writers usually describe the subject being
evaluated, explain why
it is important for the audience to go on reading, and either
state the findings or let the
reader know where they will be going. At the very beginning,
how will you hook your
reader and connect them to your topic? Consider this list of

questions to generate content
for your own introduction:
be shared with the
audience in the introduction? Why should your readers care
about this?
understand the subject of
the text you are analyzing?
as a thesis in the
introduction or would it fit better in the conclusion after you
have laid out your
findings? Or does it belong both places?
Use this information you generated to compose the introduction.
Remember, this is the
first thing your audience will read. What do they need to know
in the beginning, so they
continue on to the next paragraphs?
Your thesis makes a claim and tells your reader what

conclusion you’ve reached
based on your analysis of the text. Once you’ve made a
decision and written your thesis,
you can decide whether to include it in the beginning of the
rhetorical analysis, at the end,
or in both places. See the thesis example in the following
template.
Thesis Template
Well-known essayist, Joan Didion ___ _in her essay
"The Santa Anna" describes
(writer' credentials with first and last name) (type of
and title of text ) (verb)
the dramatic, mood altering effects of the Santa Anna winds on
human behavior. Didion's____
(writer's subject)
(Author's name + 's)
purpose is to impress upon readers the idea that the winds
themselves change the way people act and react.
(what the author does in the text)
She creates a dramatic tone in order to
convey to her readers
(verb) (voice and attitude )
the idea that the winds are sinister and their effects escapable.
*
(what the writer wants readers to do and think about the text

being evaluated.
*Taken from "Orlando Teacher," How to Write. September 22,
2014
Thinking and Composing: Introductions Review the types of
introduction strategies in
the chart below, considering which type might work well in
your rhetorical analysis. Select
an opening strategy to grab your readers’ attention and support
your purpose.
Table 9.5: Types of Introductions
Quote According to the CEO of Samsung “. . .
Rhetorical Question Do you really need a smart phone?
Anecdote I bought my first smart phone eight years
ago and have been studying them ever
since. . . . .
Startling Fact There were 4 million smart phones sold in
the United States last year.
Problem The issue at hand is which smart phone to
purchase.

Introduce the subject and provide the background that readers
will need to understand
your rhetorical analysis. Include your thesis, or write an open-
ended introduction that
promises to make an evaluative statement in the conclusion.
DRAFTING THE BODY
In order to produce a strong rhetorical analysis, you must start
by doing a close
Interpretative Reading in which you analyze the rhetorical
decisions and choices the writer
made to produce the text. In this and all of the genre chapters,
we have asked you to
analyze your writing situation to inform the production of your
text. This assignment asks
you to do the same thing from a different perspective: analyze
the decisions and choices
the writer made for the text you are studying to evaluate the
effectiveness of the text and
possibly the quality of its message. Your job is to comment on
these decisions and choices
from the perspective of the reader.
Just like in evaluations, you have criteria, but in this genre, the
criteria are the
elements in a rhetorical situation that are covered below. In
order to judge how these

criteria play out in the text you're evaluating, we suggest
starting with a says and does
outline. What the author says in each section is the content
information. In the does
outline, list what rhetorical purpose each section achieves. How
does each section achieve
the purpose of the author? This begins your rhetorical analysis.
This outline is explained
in Chapter seventeen along with an example.
DEVELOPING CONTENT
Think through the following criteria as you analyze the text and
develop content for
your rhetorical analysis
Table 9.6: Possible Criteria for a Rhetorical Analysis
Purpose
What is the purpose of this piece?
How do you know this?
How does it impact the readers?
How does the author achieve his/her purpose?
Audience
Who is the piece directed to?
How do you determine this?

How does the writer address the audience?
How does the writer make the subject important to the
audience?
How does this audience use this piece?
Does the writer reach and impact the readers?
Voice
What personality has the writer created?
What relationship does this voice setup with the reader?
How is it effective?
How does it support the purpose and speak to the audience?
Genre
What genre or combination of genres has this writer chosen?
Why this/these genre(s)?
Is this genre effective?
How does this genre support the writer's purpose and impact the
reader? How does the writer challenge the traditional model of

the genre to create something different and/or unexpected?
Content
What has the writer included to achieve his/her purpose with the
audience?
How effective is this content?
Rhetorical Appeals
What rhetorical appeals are working to support the writer's
purpose? Ethos? Pathos? Logos?
How effective are these appeals?
What logic fallacies diminish the effectiveness of the text?
Organization
How is the text organized?
Why is it organized this way?
How effective is this organization?
How does this organization achieve the purpose?
How does this organization meet the needs of the audience?
Words and Sentences
How do the writer's words and sentences create the voice?
What does this voice convey to the reader?

Rhetorical Appeals
An important element in the criteria above--rhetorical appeals
are regularly used in
rhetorical analysis. Three types of appeals are typically used by
writers to convince their
audience: Logos (logic), Ethos (authority), and Pathos
(emotion). These terms were first
introduced in ancient Greece by Aristotle, and we’re still using
them today. When judging
the effectiveness of a text, it's good to examine what and how
these appeals are working or
not working. Here’s a look at each of these appeals.
Examining the logical appeals and
logical fallacies in a text gives you content for your rhetorical
analysis.
The Logos Appeal, an appeal to Logic, is used in many
academic pieces. We look
at both sides of an argument and explain logically why our
position is the most logical for
what we need to accomplish. This appeal works well in any of
the persuasive genres, but

you’re most likely to see it in the rhetorical analysis and
Evaluation. A logical appeal
builds on the idea that there is a way of proving right or wrong.
There is evidence to
support one’s position. The appeal is well-reasoned and sound.
It is very hard to refute
and extremely effective.
The Pathos Appeal, or the Appeal to Emotion, is another great
way of arguing but
must be tempered with logic. When appealing to a reader’s
emotion, it is important not to
go overboard. The stories of poor orphans with stray pets, and
grandparents that get run
over by reindeer can run into some of the logical fallacy pitfalls
we will discuss below.
But when used strategically, emotional appeals can subvert
some logical groundwork laid
by the opposing side, and like its logical counterpoint, can be
extremely effective. You’ll
most likely see this type of appeal in advertisements and politic,
but not nearly as often in
scholarly work, although it does occasionally show up there.
The Ethos Appeal, or Appeal to Authority, is also a wonderful

way of convincing
your readers. This type of appeal relies primarily on the
author’s reputation. “But I don’t
have a reputation,” you might be muttering. That may be true,
but the sources you choose
to use do. This is where it becomes critical to evaluate the
sources you choose to support
your work. It’s as though you were having a disagreement with
a sibling, and someone
throws down with, “Well, Mom said.” That’s the end of the
conversation (unless you go
to your mom for a ruling). The final argument is the appeal to
authority. You will find
this type of appeal most often used in Position and Problem/
Solution
pieces. Its
effectiveness depends on the authority you’ve chosen to appeal
to, so be wise in your
choices.

Pitfalls or Logical Fallacies
Using each of the above appeals has a lot of wonderful things
going for it, but it is
important not to fall into one (or more) of the classic pitfalls, or
logical fallacies, that we
may encounter in writing. It is important to note here that there
are many news and media
outlets that purport to have reasoned discussions on topics of
the day. Should you spend
much time watching them, you will find several of these
fallacies popping up. You can
turn it into a game. See Table 5. that explains these logical
fallacies, and give it a try!
Using the table below, think through and write down how your
subject fares as you
apply your criteria. Always begin with purpose and audience.

Using the common appeals
isn’t a problem as long as you don’t have too much by way of
the fallacies. That doesn’t
mean you throw the baby out with the bath water, but you
certainly need to take it into
consideration in your analysis.
Table 5.8 : Applying Your Rhetorical Criteria
Which rhetorical
criteria will you
apply?

What is your judgment? What evidence will you include
to explain your judgment?
Purpose
Audience
As you answer the above questions for each criterion, you're
explaining how you
evaluated and judged your text as you develop the content for
your rhetorical analysis.
Based on the findings you report in the above section, what are

your conclusions,
judgments, and/or recommendations about this text? The
questions to ask for this section:
examine these
elements of the rhetorical
situation?
audience?
in your rhetorical
analysis?
STRUCTURING CONTENT
Structure is about managing your ideas for the reader,
corralling ideas together in

their separate paragraphs so that the reader can understand how
they link together to make
your point. There are three primary tools to help you structure
your ideas: genre, audience,
and purpose. You are performing the same act of deciding on
how to structure your
rhetorical analysis that you are evaluating in the text you are
working with.
Tool One for Structuring: Genres
There is no determined pattern laid for the content within
various sections of the
rhetorical analysis, but the genre does have some ways to sort
out your ideas. Audience

and purpose come in next as great tools for deciding how to
order a rhetorical analysis.
Below are three possible ways to structure the criteria and
judgment in the rhetorical
analysis:
Table 5.8: Structuring Your Rhetorical Analysis
Introduction
(Judgment)
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Judgment and Reasons
Introduction
(Judgment)
Successes of the Subject
Criteria

Criteria
Failures of the Subject
Criteria
Criteria
Judgment and Reasons
Tool Two for Structuring: Audience and Purpose
The needs of your audience and the purpose of your text can
also help with
determining how to organize information in your Rhetorical
analysis. Return to the notes
you made earlier in this chapter about the purpose and audience.
Use what you know
about your audience and purpose to review what you have
written for the various sections
above to decide how to order this information.
Consider the choice of whether to place the judgment in your

rhetorical analysis at the
beginning or leave it for further along in your text. Ask
yourself these questions to decide:
conclusions?
nt make it easier for
your audience to
understand your evidence and reasons for the judgment?
When writers structure content based on achieving their
purpose with an audience, it
begins with what the audience needs to know first. When you're
choosing how to structure
any document, ask yourself these questions:
1. What needs to go up front so the reader can understand the
rest of the text?
2. What does the reader need to know next? What follows the
first section?

3. What does the reader need to know next? What follows the
first and second section?
DRAFTING THE CONCLUSION
A rhetorical analysis usually concludes by offering a judgment
on what to think
about the text you analyzed. Because the conclusion is the last
connection you will
have with your reader, give thought to what points you would
like them to remember
once they’ve finished reading. Think of your ending as the last
thing with which you
want to leave your reader. What is so significant about your
analysis

or the subject you are addressing that your reader just can't
forget it. What are your last
words in this conversation you have joined?
Thinking and Composing: Composing a First Draft. Create a
first draft of you
rhetorical analysis, using the thinking and composing you have
done about your chosen
text. Turn to the Structuring Your Rhetorical Analysis Table
5.8 and chose a section to
begin your composing. You can start with your judgments and
recommendations if they
are clearest in your head. Remember that this is a draft and
does not have to be perfect.
If you get stuck, try talking to our emailing a friend about what
you are trying to say.
Stepping away from your draft and verbalizing your ideas might

get you unstuck. Draft
on!
REVISING
As you reread and evaluate your rhetorical analysis, employ the
following tools to
decide what will make your piece the best it can be. Revision is
an opportunity to make
ideas clearer and messages stronger. Writers have developed
many tools that help them re-
see their drafts and ideas, re-think those ideas, and then decide
what needs to be added,
taken out, exchanged, and moved. These tools are covered in
Chapter Seventeen.
REVISION CHECKLIST
Because the primary purpose of a rhetorical analysis is to

examine the decisions and
choices a writer makes in composing a text, and the
effectiveness of those decisions and
choices, it's good to examine this in your revision. Have you
analyzed the pertinent
components of the rhetorical situation, clearly explained your
findings, and shown how
these findings become the evidence for your evaluation? The
goal is to identify these
components in your draft, judge their effectiveness, and develop
where needed.
Step away from your draft so you can return with a fresh eye to
see again what you
have produced--not what you think you produced. Look at your
draft from the perspective
of your reader. Or ask a writing partner to read your piece and
highlight these components

of your text:
1. An explanation of the rhetorical criteria used to analyze the
text
2. Findings generated as the criteria are applied
3. Explanation of how the findings-as-evidence lead to the
judgment
Study these highlighted parts; then decide what you need to add
to make these parts the
best they can be. Think through these questions.
analysis, and synthesis you
did?
alysis, and synthesis
about your problem and
the sources?

clearly for your audience?
llow the structure of your
text?
Table 5.9: Logical Fallacies
False Authority is most commonly a problem when someone
uses an authority appeal,
but the authority isn’t appropriate for the topic. Just because
Dr. Phil has a talk show
does not make him an expert on military affairs. He would not
be a good authority figure
to utilize when discussing that topic.
False Emotion can also be called playing the pity card. If

you’re a parent, you’ve heard it
all before. “Please Dad, if I don’t get an iPod, I’ll DIE!” As
teachers, we hear: “My car
broke down, and my dog got sick, and my computer crashed,
and I got fired, and I really
couldn’t concentrate on the test, so I really think that since I
showed up with all of that
going on, I should get an A.” No, you won’t die, and no, you
shouldn’t get an A.
False Logic is sometimes called Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc, or
"If this . . .then that." This
type of fallacy can be particularly deceptive. It is often the
subject of discussion between
causation and correlation. A good example of this might be a
study that says kids who
watch Saturday morning cartoons tend to be more obese than
kids who do not;
therefore, we need to ban the sugary cereal commercials on
Saturday morning cartoons.
Clearly, there might be a correlation here. Kids who stay inside
on Saturday mornings
might be less active than others who don’t, but there are lots of
causes for obesity in
children, and sugary cereal commercials on Saturday mornings

are just one piece of a
very large puzzle.
In the Straw Man fallacy, the writer sets up a watered down
version of their opponent’s
argument, so they can knock it down and look better. An
example of this would be
claiming that Global Warming is not an immediate issue, so the
funding for preventative
measures currently pursued by the government is unnecessary.
The Red Herring fallacy occurs when the writer gets off topic to
divert from the original
argument at hand. A reader might encounter this type of fallacy
while reading about
educational budget cuts. A common Red Herring is to reference
international
educational practices rather than focusing on specific budgetary
issues regarding
education in the United States.
The Slippery Slope fallacy presents the claim that if we start
down a particular path,
there is an inevitable and usually catastrophic end. A common
Slippery Slope

misconception is that if we allow gay couples to marry, then we
need to allow brothers
and sisters to marry, parents and children to marry, and
interspecies to marry, etc.
The Bandwagon or Ad Populum fallacy explains that everyone
thinks the same way, so
the reader should think similarly. For instance, everyone is
buying a hybrid car, so you
should buy one as well.
Glittering Generalities occur when a writer uses vague words or
general discussion to
prove that everything is wonderful or terrific, or great! This
fallacy is most commonly
seen in advertising and politics. An example would be the
government’s position that the
economy is really doing great right now because there has been
a substantial increase in
employment.

Ad Hominem is seen most in politics when the candidates attack
their opponent rather
than attacking their opponent’s ideas or topics. A popular Ad
Hominem would be the
attack on Bill Clinton’s personal life rather than focusing on his
policies as president.
Either/Or fallacies explain that there are only two options,
either supporting your
position or opposing it, when the reality likely has multiple
options for a position. For
example, either you are for abortion, or you are against it.
Example of Article with its Rhetorical Analysis:
alysis of "My Culture at the Crossroads.'"

IN SUMMARY: "RHETORICAL ANALYSIS"
o A rhetorical analysis analyzes the rhetorical situation of a text
in order to
determine how it works and its effectiveness.
o A rhetorical analysis can enter two types of conversations:
one on the subject
of the text being analyzed and one on the subject of writing and
communication.
o A rhetorical analysis furthers the conversation on a subject by
analyzing how
effective or ineffective the text is in addition to the
conversation.
o The genre of rhetorical analysis usually contains 1) a
summary or description of
the text, 2) claim about the text, 3) analysis of the rhetorical
elements with
evidence and findings, and 4) a connection of that evidence to
your judgments.

o Determine the audience, purpose and voice that will best suit
the writing
situation of your rhetorical analysis.
o Generate your content and decide on its structure after
considering the
traditional parts and structures of a rhetorical analysis, in light
of what is called
for in your individual writing situation.
o Review the clarity of how your findings from the application
of the criteria lead
to the evidence that supports your judgment.
END OF CHAPTER THINKING AND WRITING
1. Label the basic components in the chart below of the ad
"Why Do Most Sixteen
Year Olds Drive Like They Are Missing Part of Their Brain?"
Do you agree with

the content of the ad? Why or why not? How well crafted is
the ad?
Rhetorical Analysis of "Why Do Most Sixteen Year Olds Drive
Like They're
Missing a Part of Their Brain?"
Purpose:
Rhetorical Criteria
Place of Publication:
Audience: Findings and Evidence
Voice:

Why do most 16-year-olds
drive like they're
missing a part of their brain?
B E C A U S E T H E Y A R E .
EVEN BRIGHT, MATURE TEENAGERS SOMETIMES DO
THINGS THAT ARE
'
STUPID
'
But when that happens, it's not really their fault. It's

because their brain hasn't finished developing. The
underdeveloped area is called the dorsal lateral prefrontal
cortex. It plays a critical role in decision making, problem
solving and understanding future consequences of today's
actions. Problem is, it won't be fully mature until they're
into their 20s.
It's one reason I6-year-old drivers have crash rates three
times higher than 17-year-olds and five times higher than
18-year-olds. Car crashes injure about 300,000 teens a
year. And kill nearly 6,000. Is there a way for teens to get
their driving experience more safely—giving their brains
time to mature as completely as their bodies? Allstate
thinks so.
Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws are one approach
that's been proven effective at reducing teen
crashes. These laws restrict the more dangerous kinds of
driving teens do, such as nighttime driving and driving with
teen passengers. Since North Carolina implemented one of
the most comprehensive GDL laws in the country, it has

seen a 25% decline in crashes involving 16-year-olds.
To find out what the GDL laws are in your state, visit
Allstate.com/teen. Help enforce them—and if they aren't
strong enough, ask your legislator to strengthen them.
Let's help our teenagers not miss out on tomorrow just
because they have something missing today.
It’s time to make the world a safer place to drive.
THAT’S
AL LST AT E’S S TA ND
The Cupped Hands logo is a registered service mark and “That’s
Allstate’s Stand” is a service mark of Allstate Insurance
Company. Life insurance and annuities issued by Allstate
Life Insurance Company, Northbrook, IL and Lincoln Benefit
Life Company, Lincoln, NE. In New York, Allstate Life
Insurance Company of New York, Hauppauge, NY. Property-
casualty insurance products issued by Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company, Allstate

Allstate
You're in Good
Hands
Auto
Home
Life
Retirement
2. Above is one of the visuals that the Food and Drug
Administration proposed to
require that cigarette manufactures put on their cigarette
packages starting in

September 2012. The website explains:
Beginning September 2012, FDA will require larger, more
prominent
cigarette health warnings on all cigarette packaging and
advertisements in the
United States. These warnings mark the first change in cigarette
warnings in
more than 25 years and are a significant advancement in
communicating the
dangers of smoking.
(<http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/CigaretteWarn
ingLabels/de
fault.htm>)
Working with your writing partner, identify and examine the
rhetorical decisions
and choices the creators of these visuals made. Who is the

audience? What is the
purpose? Why do these warnings include pictures? Why are
they as graphic as
they are? What is the purpose of these warnings? Will they
work?
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper
Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich
Paris Montreal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul
Singapore Taipei Tokyo
Quantitative Analysis
For Management
ELEVENTH EDITION

BARRY RENDER
Charles Harwood Professor of Management Science
Graduate School of Business, Rollins College
RALPH M. STAIR, JR.
Professor of Information and Management Sciences,
Florida State University
MICHAEL E. HANNA
Professor of Decision Sciences,
University of Houston—Clear Lake
To my wife and sons – BR
To Lila and Leslie – RMS
To Susan, Mickey, and Katie – MEH
Editorial Director: Sally Yagan

Editor in Chief: Eric Svendsen
Senior Acquisitions Editor: Chuck Synovec
Product Development Manager: Ashley Santora
Director of Marketing: Patrice Lumumba Jones
Senior Marketing Manager: Anne Fahlgren
Marketing Assistant: Melinda Jones
Senior Managing Editor: Judy Leale
Project Manager: Mary Kate Murray
Senior Operations Specialist: Arnold Vila
Operations Specialist: Cathleen Petersen
Senior Art Director: Janet Slowik
Art Director: Steve Frim
Text and Cover Designer: Wee Design Group
Manager, Rights and Permissions:
Hessa Albader
Cover Art: Shutterstock
Media Project Manager, Editorial:
Allison Longley
Media Project Manager, Production:
John Cassar
Full-Service Project Management:

PreMediaGlobal
Composition: PreMediaGlobal
Printer/Binder: Edwards Brothers
Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color/Hagerstown
Text Font: 10/12 Times
Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and
reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear
on appropriate page within text.
Microsoft® and Windows® are registered trademarks of the
Microsoft Corporation in the U.S.A. and other countries.
Screen shots and icons reprinted with permission from the
Microsoft Corporation. This book is not sponsored or
endorsed by or affiliated with the Microsoft Corporation.
Copyright © 2012, 2009, 2006, 2003, 2000 Pearson Education,
Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall, One Lake Street,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458. All rights reserved.
Manufactured in the United States of America. This publi-
cation is protected by Copyright, and permission should be
obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited repro-
duction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy-

ing, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use
material from this work, please submit a written request to
Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake
Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Many of the designations by manufacturers and seller to
distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where
those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was
aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been
printed in initial caps or all caps.
CIP data for this title is available on file at the Library of
Congress
ISBN-13: 978-0-13-214911-2
ISBN-10: 0-13-214911-7
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
iii
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Barry Render Professor Emeritus, the Charles Harwood
Distinguished Professor of management sci-
ence at the Roy E. Crummer Graduate School of Business at
Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida.
He received his MS in Operations Research and his PhD in
Quantitative Analysis at the University of
Cincinnati. He previously taught at George Washington
University, the University of New Orleans,
Boston University, and George Mason University, where he held
the Mason Foundation Professorship
in Decision Sciences and was Chair of the Decision Science
Department. Dr. Render has also worked
in the aerospace industry for General Electric, McDonnell
Douglas, and NASA.
Dr. Render has coauthored 10 textbooks published by Prentice
Hall, including Managerial
Decision Modeling with Spreadsheets, Operations Management,
Principles of Operations
Management, Service Management, Introduction to Management
Science, and Cases and Readings
in Management Science. Dr. Render’s more than 100 articles on
a variety of management topics
have appeared in Decision Sciences, Production and Operations
Management, Interfaces,

Information and Management, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Socio-Economic
Planning Sciences, IIE

Rhetorical Analysis p. 1 Talking Back Ch.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Rhetorical Analysis p. 1 Talking Back Ch.docx

Similar to Rhetorical Analysis p. 1 Talking Back Ch.docx (15)

More from joellemurphey

More from joellemurphey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Rhetorical Analysis p. 1 Talking Back Ch.docx