Rhetoric and Composition/Rhetorical Analysis
← Oral Presentations · Grammar and Mechanics →
From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
< Rhetoric and Composition
Jump to: navigation, search
TODO


TODO
I'd like to see more generalizing/overview like approaches to this page; the huge lists are intimidating and probably not ultimately useful for getting a broader understanding of the topics. Try to structure the page so that the information is better integrated and consolidated. --Mattbarton.exe (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Overview of Rhetorical Analysis
* 2 Basic Rhetorical Strategies
* 3 Pathos
* 4 Ethos
* 5 Logos
* 6 Deductive Logic
* 7 Inductive Logic
* 8 Logical Fallacies
o 8.1 Critical Reading
o 8.2 Persuasive Appeals

[edit] Overview of Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical analysis refers to analyzing a text or a given source. That text may be writing or some different sort of communication which includes the consideration of the rhetorical situations-purpose, audience, genre, stance, and media/design. In other words, the analysis explores not only what everything means in the given source (content), but also why the author wrote about it (the purpose), who the author is (background), how the piece was organized (structure), and where and/or when it was published (forum), etc.

The rhetorical situation of a given source involves employing some reading strategies, being more specific, some critical reading skills, examining how and why a particular text is written in the first place, what kind of readers the text is intended for, and what the goal of the text is. Those goals may include context of issues, the writer, the publication, and other background information. The analyzer needs to observe the writer’s purpose and relationship to readers. The analyzer also needs to observe the writer’s language such as tone, denotation/connotation, figures of speech, and stereotypes.

Therefore, rhetorical analysis is one of the more challenging assignments in any writing class. Students often confuse a rhetorical analysis with a review: both analyze a text thoroughly. However, a rhetorical analysis reserves judgment on whether they agree/disagree with the topic presented. A review, of course, invites the reviewer to critique how "good" or "bad" the content of an article, book, or movie is. The sole goal of a rhetorical analysis is to analyze the author's writing (or visuals, if one is engaging in a visual rhetorical analysis). How did the author craft his/her argument? This should be the guiding question during any rhetorical analysis.

Rhetoric is a term that is widely used in many forms, and by itself can mean a great many things. Some use the term in association with political rhetoric, to name the voice and stance, as well as the language that becomes the nature of politics. Rhetoric can be thought of as the way in which you phrase what you are saying, and the forces that impact what you are saying. If you think about the different groups of people that you communicate with, you will see that you use different forms of rhetoric with each of them. You talk to your friends differently than you talk to your parents, or your teachers, or your employers. Each group you associate with calls for a different form of language, of voice, of rhetoric to be used.
[edit] Basic Rhetorical Strategies

For the purposes of writing, when we refer to rhetoric, we often talk about it as the art of persuasion. There are many different strategies a communicator may employ to get his message across. Below is a list of some of the more basic ones:

Exemplification: Provide examples or cases in point. Are there examples -- facts, statistics, cases in point, personal experiences, interview quotations -- added to the essay?

Description: Detail sensory perceptions of a person, place, or thing. Does a person, place, or object play a prominent role in the essay?

Narration: Recount an event. Are there any anecdotes, experiences, or stories in the essay? Process analysis: Explain how to do something or how something happens. Does any portion of the essay include concrete directions about a certain process?

Comparison and contrast: Discuss similarities and differences. Does the essay contain two or more related subjects? Does it evaluate or analyze two or more people, places, processes, events, or things? Are there any similarities and/or differences between two or more elements?

Division and classification: Divide a whole into parts or sort related items into categories. Does the essay reduce the subject to more manageable parts or group parts?

Definition: Provide the meaning of terms you use. Is there any important word in the essay with many meanings and is defined or clarified?

Cause and effect analysis: Analyze why something happens and describe the consequences of a string of events. Does the essay examine past events or their outcome? Does it explain why something happened?

Argumentation: Convince through reasoning. See more on inductive and deductive reasoning below.

Aristotelian appeals: Appeals to passion (pathos), ethics (ethos), or logic (logos). See more on appeals below.

Repetition: The constant use of certain words. Why, with all words at her disposal, does the writer choose to repeat particular words?

Counterpoints: Contrasting ideas such as black/white, darkness/light, good/bad. Does the writer acknowledge and respond to counterpoints to her position?

Imagery: Language that evokes one or all of the five senses: sight, sound, touch, taste, smell. Does the essay use any provocative language that calls upon readers’ senses?

Metaphor and simile: A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by “like” or “as.” Does the essay make connections between things to make a point or elicit an idea?

Style, tone, and voice: The attitude a writer takes towards a subject or character: serious, humorous, sarcastic, ironic, satirical, tongue-in-cheek, solemn, objective. What tone does the essay have? How does the writer portray herself? What choices does she make that influence her position?

Analogy: The comparison of two pairs that have the same relationship. Are there any comparisons made by the writer to strengthen her message?

Flashback: Action that interrupts to show an event that happened at an earlier time which is necessary to better understand current information. Is the essay out of chronological order?

Hyperbole: Exaggeration or overstatement. Does the writer make any claims that seem extreme?

Personification: Giving human qualities to animals or objects. Is something without conscience thinking or talking?

"'Allusion"': A reference to something real or fictional, to someone, some event, or something in the Bible, history, literature, or any phase of culture.

Irony: An expression or utterance marked by deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning, often humorous. Does the writer really support her own assertions? Does she seem to be claiming the opposite you expect her to claim?

Oxymoron: A contradiction in terms such as “faithless devotion,” “searing cold,” “deafening silence,” “virtual reality,” “act naturally,” “peacekeeper missile,” or “larger half.” Do any of the writer’s terms seem to obviously clash?

Paradox: Reveals a kind of truth which at first seems contradictory; Red wine is both good and bad for us. Do any contradictions used in the essay contain some grain of truth?

Symbolism: Using an object or action that means something more than its literal meaning; A skull and crossbones symbolize death. Does the writer seem to assert that a thing has meaning outside of the obvious?

Parody: A humorous exaggerated imitation, or travesty. If there is humor, does it seem to be mocking or making fun or a particular person, place, thing, or action?

Sarcasm: A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. Are there any caustic ironies in the essay?

Satire: Literary tone used to ridicule or make fun of human vice or weakness, often with the intent of correcting, or changing, the subject of the satiric attack. Does the writer’s humor aim to fix its target?

Diction: Choice of words. Why, with all words at her disposal, does the writer choose to use those particular words?

Parallelism: The use of identical or equivalent constructions in corresponding clauses. Are there any syntactic similarities between two parts of a sentence?
[edit] Pathos

Pathos is the appeal to passion, the use of emotion to persuade readers’ or listeners’ opinions in a rhetorical argument. Pathetic appeals (the use of pathos) are characterized by evocative imagery, description, visuals, and the like to create within the reader or listener a sense of emotion: outrage, sorrow, excitement, etc.

Pathos is often easily recognizable—audiences tend to know when what they hear or read swells emotion within their hearts and minds. Be careful to distinguish between pathos as a rhetorical vehicle to persuade using emotion and the logical fallacy “appeal to pity.” Both use emotion to make their point, but the fallacy diverts the audience from the issue to the self while the appeal emphasizes the impact of the issue.

A good example of pathos is in public services announcements. Some of the most popular include drug warnings: A woman is at the stove in the kitchen with a skillet. She holds up an egg and says, “This is your brain.” She cracks the egg into the skillet where it immediately begins to cook. “This is your brain on drugs.” Or the more recent billboards cautioning against (meth)amphetamines which show an attractive young person juxtaposed against a mug-shot of the same person at a later date but with pustules, open sores, missing teeth, unkempt hair, acne, running makeup, and any other assortment of detrimental and hideous signs of the drug’s ruinous capabilities. Audiences are not meant to pity these individuals; rather, the audience is meant to reel in horror at the destruction meth can cause to a person in a short amount of time. In this case, horror or shock is the emotional tool rhetoric wields to persuade. It should be noted that people with acne, unkempt hair, or other traits listed are not necessarily uncommon—in fact, these traits can be found in vast numbers of high school students; the traits are merely shown in conjunction with the normative “before” picture to elicit the desired emotion. Either of the pictures alone would not be rhetorically effective, it is only by placing them together that the audience is passionately moved.
[edit] Ethos

Ethos is the appeal to ethics, the use of authority to persuade an audience to believe in their character. And while ethos is called an ethical appeal, be careful not to confuse it solely with ethics; it encompasses a large number of different things which can include what a person wears, says, the words they use, their tone, their credentials, their experience, their charge over the audience, verbal and nonverbal behavior, criminal records, etc.

To elaborate, the construction of authority is reflected in how the rhetorician presents herself, what diction she uses, how she phrases her ideas, what other authorities she refers to, how she composes herself under stress, her experience within the context of her message, her personal or academic background, and more.

Spokespersons are great examples of companies attempting to persuade the audience to purchase their product based on an authority. What a skeptical, intelligent, and analytical person would ask is: “Does the authority of the spokesperson the company is using have anything to do with the product?” When a celebrity is employed to advertise an unrelated product, the company selling the product is attempting to persuade using the fallacy “Appeal to the people” (often known as the “Bandwagon appeal”) and “Appeal to an unqualified authority” based on the assumption that the audience will want the product so they can be just like the popular artist, and not because that artist knows anything about the product. I wouldn’t buy a soft drink just because Madonna endorses it, but I would buy golf clubs from Tiger Woods.

Doctors are another authority tapped by companies to hock their wares. The question to ask here is: “Are those real doctors? Or are they a façade?” If they are real, they constitute an actual authority (assuming the item they’re supporting is medically related); if they are fake, they are just a ploy and fall again under the fallacy “Appeal to an unqualified authority.”

In academia, ethos can be constructed not only by diction, tone, phrasing, and the like, but by what the rhetorician knows. A works cited page reflects this. It says: this author has read these sources, and knows their contents. And if those sources are relevant, reputable, and well regarded, the author has just benefited from that association. At the same time, authors want to make sure they properly introduce their sources within their writing to establish the authority they are drawing from.
[edit] Logos

Logos is most easily defined as the logical appeal of an argument. Say that you are writing a paper on immigration and you say "55,000 illegal immigrants entered this country last year, of those, only 23,000 did it legally." There is obviously something wrong here. Although say 55,000 immigrants were "illegal" makes for an impressive statistic, it is apparently not correct if you admit that 23,000 of these people immigrated legally. The actual number of illegal immigrants would then be only 32,000, a significantly lower number.

False facts like this one are one example of faulty logos. To look into the matter further, one needs to take a look at the two different types of logos and how they function. These two types are known as "deductive" and "inductive."
[edit] Deductive Logic

A deductive logical argument is one that works from the top to the bottom. It begins with what is known as a "major premise," adds a "minor premise," and attempts to reach a conclusion. A major premise is a statement that names something about a large group, a minor premise takes a single member, and the conclusion attempts to prove that because this single member is a part of the larger group, they must also have the trait named in the original statement. For example:

MEN ARE TALL - a major premise as it works with a large group of people
BOB IS A MAN - a minor premise as we hear about only one individual of that group
BOB IS TALL - we attempt to make a conclusion based upon what we have already been told

Now, if it is true that men are tall, and that Bob is a man, then we can safely infer that Bob must be tall. However, beware the logical fallacy. Though it may be true that in certain cultures men are, on average, taller than women, certainly this is not always the case. Being that our major premise is not altogether true, we can now say that this argument is flawed. Furthermore, we might ask what our definition of "tall" is. Tall is different if we are talking about the average population, or basketball players. Also, what is a man? Do transgendered individuals count? We see that the problem becomes far more complex the more we look into it.
[edit] Inductive Logic

As some would argue that a deductive argument works from the top down, toward a conclusion, some comment that an inductive argument works from the bottom up. This is mildly misleading. What is meant by this is that an inductive logical argument begins with a firm affirmation of truth, a conclusive statement. By getting the audience to agree with this statement, the argument moves to the next "logical" step. It proceeds in this manner until the argument has led you from one seemingly reasonable conclusion to another that you may not have originally agreed with. Take the following as an example. Move through the argument slowly, making sure you understand and agree with each step in the process (and please forgive the religious content, you'll come to see it is irrelevant anyway).
The human soul is inherently free. This is its very nature. We are confined to our mortal, earthly bodies, but our souls must be kept free, or the nature of the soul is entirely negated. If one chooses to believe in a soul, they can only believe that it embraces this (vague idea of ) freedom.

At conception, a child is given a soul. Some may argue that it is not until birth, but if those very same persons are pro-life, they confuse their arguments. Thus, if someone is pro-life, and believes in a soul, they must believe in the freedom of that soul, and also accept that the soul is granted upon conception.

A soul cannot die. By the same means by which it is free over the body, a soul claims immortality while the body decomposes and is ruined. To deny that a soul is immortal is again to deny the very essence of a soul. Thus, if someone is pro-life, and believes in a soul, they must believe in the freedom of that soul, the immortality of the soul, and also accept that the soul is granted upon conception.

A soul cannot be born. It is immortal and cannot die, it is not earthly, it forever exists, and cannot be born. There are tales in Greek mythology of Athena’s birth, yet she bounds from her father’s head a fully decorated woman. She was not born. She existed previously, as Milton writes the Son in Paradise Lost. If one accepts the Bible’s teachings, there can be no reincarnation, another form of birth, a rebirth. Thus, if someone is pro-life, and believes in a soul, and does not accept reincarnation, they must believe in the freedom of that soul, the immortality of the soul that is always and forever (which cannot be born and cannot die), and also accept that the soul is granted upon conception.

A soul being always an essence, and not being able to be reincarnated, can only exist outside of the body, somewhere, until the act of conception occurs. That soul must then be placed in the body that was forever intended to receive it, as it belongs nowhere else. The soul is fated to that one body. Thus, if someone is pro-life, and believes in a soul, and does not accept reincarnation, namely a practicing Catholic, they must also believe in the freedom of the soul, and in the concept of fate. Fate, however, completely opposes the idea of freedom. One cannot then believe in a soul, for it immediately enforces a belief if fate which directly negates the belief in the soul. If our actions are written in a Divine plan, we are not free to make our own choices. Every action has been scripted.
Do not worry, it must be that you were meant to read this.
A sample inductive argument by Ben Doberstein.

Having seen this, some might say that the argument defeats Catholicism from an atheist standpoint. Others might find that it argues for the secularization of religion. Still, there are ways in which it supports Catholicism at the same time.

Though the argument might seem as if it is disagreeing with the Catholic religion, and some would agree that it is, we must always be looking for the logical fallacy. Upon closer inspection, you may notice that all this argument truly does, in one reading of the text, is to explain the complexity of God through the mind of a human. Catholicism has argued since the beginning that God is impossible to fully explain using the conceptions of man. In that way, this argument only supports that conclusion.

Be aware that there will be logic fallacies hidden in almost every argument. If there is more than one side to an argument, such as in religious or political debates, it is most likely because the argument is impossible to prove. Hence, there will be a logical fallacy present.
[edit] Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies, often referred to by their Latin name “non sequitur” (which translates to “it does not follow”), are powerful tools in logic and rhetoric. When an arguer is able to identify her opponent’s fallacious positions, she can point them out and expose a weakness. She undermines her opponent’s position. Arguers comfortable with fallacies have an easier time avoiding them, thus making their positions more tenable.

Missteps in logic can be confusing for students: sometimes a fallacy will be called by its Latin name, other times they will be referred to by a synonym; some are clumped together, and others are overly specific. For example: “Argument against the person” is often called an “Ad hominem” argument; a “Complex question” can be referred to as a “Loaded question”; “Appeal to the people” occasionally loses its distinction between direct and indirect (referred to only as “Bandwagon fallacy”); and “Begging the question” many times implies only its aspect of circular reasoning and not the other aspects.

However, more important than agreeing on a name is the recognition of these non sequiturs. While a logician might dedicate her life to this topic, as a student you are expected only to avoid fallacies in your own writing and identify them in others’. The following is a fairly comprehensive list of fallacies:

Appeal to force
Arguer threatens reader/listener.
Example: If you don't agree with me, I will beat you up.

Appeal to pity
Arguer elicits pity from reader/listener.
Example: If you don't pass me in this course, I will get kicked out of school and have to flip burgers the rest of my life.

Appeal to the people (direct)
Arguer arouses mob mentality.
Example: The terrorists came from the middle east. Our only course of action is to turn it into a parking lot.

Appeal to the people (indirect)
Arguer appeals to the reader/listener's desire for security, love, respect, etc.
Example: Of course you want to read my book, it's what all the intellectuals read.

Argument against the person (abusive)
Arguer verbally abuses the other arguer.
Example: You're a moron, therefore your point is invalid.

Argument against the person (circumstantial)
Arguer presents the other arguer as predisposed to argue in this way.
Example: Of course you'd say I need braces; you're a dentist. (Anyone may be able to note I need braces.)

Argument against the person (tu quoque)
Arguer presents other arguer as a hypocrite.
Example: How can you tell me not to drink and drive when you did it last weekend? (Note: don't drink and drive.)

Accident
General rule is applied to a specific case it was not intended to cover.
Example: Americans are entitled to freedom of speech, so you cannot arrest him for yelling "fire" in the theater. (Note: don't yell "fire" in the theater.)

Straw man
Arguer distorts opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument.
Example: Our campus is "dry" and doesn't allow alcohol. Obviously the administration is composed of a bunch of puritans who don't speak for the majority and can be ignored.

Missing the point
Arguer draws conclusion different from that supported by the premises.
Example: College education costs are rising exponentially, therefore we should reduce the number of years needed to obtain a degree.

Red herring
Arguer leads reader/listener off track.
Example: People continually talk about the negative effects of tobacco, but did you know that the Native Americans used to smoke tobacco? Many Native American folk remedies are still used today in holistic medicine.

Appeal to unqualified authority
Arguer cites untrustworthy authority.
Example: My sixteen year old cousin Billy said that there was no moon landing, and he wants to be an astronaut, so it must be true.

Appeal to ignorance
Premises report that nothing is known or proved, and then a conclusion is drawn.
Example: There is no way of disproving the existence of God, therefore he exists. Or, conversely: There is no way of proving the existence of God, therefore he doesn't exist.

Hasty generalization
Conclusion is drawn from atypical sample.
Example: Mrs. Dobson's Rottweiler bit a neighbor boy, therefore all Rottweilers are violent dogs.

False cause
Conclusion depends on nonexistent or minor causal connection.
Example: Every time I change the channel, my sports team scores. Therefore, any time I want my team to score, I need only change the channel.

Slippery slope
Conclusion depends on unlikely chain reaction.
Example: If Americans' rights to bear arms is taken away, foreigners will view the country as weak and disarmed and attack, easily crushing our crippled defenses and enslaving our nation to submit to their will and whim.

Weak analogy
Conclusion depends on defective analogy.
Example: My cousin Billy is just like Yao Ming, he is tall and loves basketball; therefore he will be a pro ball player just like Yao Ming.

Begging the question
Arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises are adequate by leaving out key premises, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle.
Example: Of course animals have rights, just look at how they're being treated.

Complex question
Multiple questions are concealed in a single question.
Example: Have you stopped sleeping with your secretary?

False dichotomy
"Either/or" statement that hides additional alternatives.
Example: Either you buy Axe body spray or you risk not attracting the ladies. Obviously you want to attact the ladies, so you will buy Axe body spray.

Supressed evidence
Arguer ignores important evidence that requires a different conclusion.
Example: Of course that child can't practice medicine, he is only a boy. (If said child is Doogie Howser.)

Equivocation
Conclusion depends on a shift in meaning of a word of phrase.
Example: A squirrel is a mammal, therefore a large squirrel is a large mammal.

Amphiboly
Conclusion depends on the wrong interpretation of a syntactically ambiguous statement.
Example: John rode his bike past the tree with a helmet. (The tree has a helmet?)

Composition
Attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to whole.
Example: Bleach and ammonia individually are strong chemical cleaners, therefore if I mix them I will have a stronger chemical cleaner. (Note: don't mix bleach and ammonia.)

Division
Attribute is wrongly transferred from whole to parts.
Example: Our campus is over one hundred years old, therefore every building on campus is over one hundred years old.

[edit] Critical Reading

Critical reading is the first step for rhetorical analysis. In order to make a reasonable and logical analysis, you need to apply critical reading skills to a text that you are about to analyze. For example, when reading, you can break the whole text down into several parts. Then, try to determine what the writer is attempting to achieve and identify the writing strategies s/he is using. Use these findings to determine whether the argument is effective or not. Reading critically does not simply mean being moved, affected, informed, influenced, and persuaded by a piece of writing; it's much more than that. It refers to analyzing and understanding how the writing has achieved its effect. Some specific questions can guide you in your critical reading process. You can use them in reading the text, and if asked to, you can use them in writing a formal analysis. The following is a list of suggested questions that you may find useful for your reading. However, you don't need to apply all of these questions to every text. You may use them selectively according to the specific reading at hand. This is simply one method for getting you started on reading (and then writing) more critically.

Questions to Ask in Critical Reading:

* What is the subject? Does the subject bring up any personal associations? Is it a controversial one?

The "subject" is a topic that interests the author and is being explored by the author in the given text. The subject matter focuses on the author's interest and enthusiasm for it usually leads to a writing that is interesting. When you find the subject matter, think of it's "scope". How broad or narrow the author's approach to the subject is. You may consider the length in words in terms of the scope of the author's treatment of the subject. Then try to observe whether the author's topic associates you with your own personal related experience. What do you think of the subject? Do you think of it as a controversial topic? How?

* What is the thesis (the overall main point)? How does the thesis interpret the subject? If asked, could you summarize the main idea?

An effective argument centers on a clear thesis. The main body of an argument, however long or divided, should be continually moving towards proving the thesis in the reader's mind.

Good writers will usually unveil their thesis in the first or second paragraph. It's a good strategy to prepare the audience early, and set them up to properly filter the information that will follow.

Often, an author will alert the reader to the fact that he/she is introducing a thesis with a signaling statement. When an author begins a phrase with something like "This article will demonstrate...", or "My analysis will show that...", he/she is preparing readers for the thesis. As a reader, when you see these signals, it's time to pay attention. The author is about to reveal something important about the argument. That said, this is not the only way to introduce a thesis. Authors often are much more subtle. It is important to closely read the first couple of paragraphs to get a good idea what the essay will be about.

Here's an example of a research article that utilizes a signaling statement about its thesis. See if you can pick up on the cues that Stephen Fishman and Lucille Parkinson McCarthy provided in the first paragraph of their article, "Is Expressivism Dead?"

In the 1980s expressivism as a philosophy of composition came increasingly under attack, and social constructionism--the view that good writers must master the accepted practices of a discourse community--was widely adopted as an alternative. The purpose of this article is to defend expressivism against this attack, particularly against two charges. First, responding to the charge that expressivism, following the romantics, is tied to the ideal of the isolated writer, Steve Fishman argues on historical grounds that it was the social reform dimension of German romanticism that inspired expressivism. Second, Lucille McCarthy responds to the charge that expressivism disempowers students because it does not help them learn disciplinary and professional languages...
"Is Expressivism Dead?," Excerpted from College English, Vol. 54, no. 6, October 1992

Fishman and McCarthy get straight to business and introduce the problem, (post-structuralist attacks on their pet theory, expressivism) and then introduce the main point of their article. They introduce their thesis with the signaling statement: "The purpose of this article," preparing the audience for the main points to follow.

Other authors leave clues about their thesis after it has been introduced. Here's an example from Emily Bazelon's article published in Slate magazine, "Forget Homework":

Over the last decade, Japanese schools have been scrapping homework, while American elementary schools have been assigning more of it. What gives--aren't they supposed to be the model achievers while we're the slackers? No doubt our eagerness to shed the slacker mantle has helped feed the American homework maw. But it may be the Japanese, once again, who know what they're doing.
Such is my conclusion after reading three new books on the subject: The Case against Homework by Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish; The Homework Myth by Alfie Kohn; and the third edition of The Battle Over Homework by Duke psychology professor Harris Cooper...
Excerpt from "Forget Homework," Slate 9/14/2006

In this instance, the subject is a debate over homework. Japanese schools are cutting back while American schools are loading up. Which does Bazelon consider the best approach? She concludes paragraph one with the idea that she is at least leaning toward the Japanese method. But the reader can be certain that this is her position when she leads off the second paragraph with "Such is my conclusion...", a clear indication that the audience has just read a thesis.

* Who is the intended audience? What values and/or beliefs do they hold that the writer could appeal to?

Audience is vital to the rhetorical success of any text, speech, or effort to persuade. A writer must consider what type of audience he/she is writing for, and evaluate the values and beliefs that the audience is likely to have. The writer should take into account any assumptions held by his/her audience.

* What is the tone of the text? What is your reaction to the text, emotional or rational (think of pathos)? Does this reaction change at all throughout the text?

Paying attention to your individual reaction at different points throughout the text will help you critically assess the writer's goals in the piece. If you feel anger at what the writer is stating, make a note of why you feel it. Pay attention to the vocabulary the writer uses. It may be negative or positive.

* What is the writer's purpose? To explain? Inform? Anger? Persuade? Amuse? Motivate? Sadden? Ridicule? Attack? Defend? Is there more than one purpose? Does the purpose shift at all throughout the text?

If the writer's purpose is to simply explain something, chances are the text will contain scientific language or statistics. An example would be a flight manual or owner's manual for an automobile. Political ads are good examples of how writers will attempt to anger or persuade their audience about something. Using the voting histories of other candidates, audiences are encouraged to be angry or upset, and the result is a vote for the candidate the ad is supporting.

* What methods does the writer use to develop his/her ideas? Narration? Description? Definition? Comparison? Analogy? Cause and Effect? Example? Why does the writer use these methods? Do these methods help in his/her development of ideas?

* 'What pattern does the author use for the arrangement of ideas?' Particular to general, broad to specific, spatial, chronological, alternating, or block? Does the format enhance or detract from the content? Does it help the piece along or distract from it?

* Does the writer use adequate transitions to make the text unified and coherent? Do you think the transitions work well? In what ways do they work well?

* Are there any patterns in the sentence structure that make the writer's purpose clear to you? What are these patterns like if there are some? Does the writer use any fragments or run-ons?

* Is there any dialog and/or quotations used in the text? To what effect? For what purpose is this dialog or quotations used?

* In what way does the writer use diction? Is the language emotionally evocative? Does the language change throughout the piece? How does the language contribute to the writer's aim?

* Is there anything unusual in the writer's use of punctuation? What punctuation or other techniques of emphasis (italics, capitals, underlining, ellipses, parentheses) does the writer use? Is punctuation over- or under-used? Which marks does the writer use where, and to what effect?

* Are there any repetitions of important terms throughout the text? Are these repetitions effective, or do they detract from the text?

* Does the writer present any particularly vivid images that stand out? What is the effect of these images on the writer's purpose?

* Are there any tropes--similes, metaphors, personification, hyperbole, comparisons, contrasts, etc. that are employed by the writer? When does he/she use them? For what reason(s)? Are those devices used to convey or enhance meaning?

* Are there any other devices such as humor, wordplay, irony, sarcasm, understatement, or parody that are used in the text?' Is the effect comic relief? Pleasure? Hysteria? Ridicule?

* Is there any information about the background of the writer? Is the writer an acceptable authority on the subject? How do you know?

[edit] Persuasive Appeals

One of the first steps in rhetorical analysis is to determine what persuasive appeals the author is employing. There are three persuasive appeals (or rhetorical strategies): logos, pathos, and ethos. A good argument will combine all three; however, not all pieces of writing (scholarly included) utilize all three appeals.

Logos: Logos relies on logic or reason and depends on deductive and/or inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with a generalization and then applies it to a specific case. The generalization you start with must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. Inductive reasoning takes a specific representative case, or facts, and then draws generalizations or conclusions from them. Inductive reasoning must be based on a sufficient amount of reliable evidence. In other words, the facts you draw on must fairly represent the larger situation or population.

Pathos: Pathos appeals to an audience's needs and/or values. It is a highly emotional appeal. Though argument emphasizes reason, there is usually a place for emotion as well. Emotional appeals can use sources such as interviews and individual stories to paint a moving picture of reality, or to illuminate the truth. For example, telling the story of a specific child who has been abused may make for a more persuasive argument than simply stating the number of children abused each year. The story provides the numbers with a human face. However, a writer must be careful not to employ emotional appeals which distract from the crux of the debate, argument, or point trying to be made.

Ethos: Ethos gives the author credibility. It is important to build credibility with your audience because without it, readers are less inclined to trust you or accept the argument presented to them. Using credible sources is one method of building credibility. A certain amount of ethos may be implied solely from the author's reputation, but a writer should not rely only on reputation to prop up his/her work. A sure way to damage your ethos is by attacking or insulting an opponent or opposing viewpoint. The most effective ethos should develop from what is said, whether it is in spoken or written form. The most persuasive rhetoricians are the ones that understand this concept.

Examples of how Rhetorical Appeals are Used

The following example shows how the aforementioned rhetorical appeals function in Martin Luther King Jr.'s, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." [1]