The below instruction for this assignments is just copied/pasted and could be confusing. Please first check the “Modules” attached file to get more clear idea. I will share with you the textbook, syllabus, and all other documents.

Introduction-7 (Due Date : July 13)

“The Obstacle is the Way”

This module begins with a discussion of the out-of-class rhetorical analysis.

The story that begins this section really speaks to my teaching philosophy in general. They start by talking about the writer Jane Tomkins, and her realization after beginning each writing project that she’s failed to address some major objection people will have to her argument, and the panic that ensues from that realization. The epiphany that came from that is the key to good writing: that’s where the best writing starts. You don’t need to panic. You don’t need to give up, you just need to write through it.

The rest of the chapter talks about how. I will talk about the rest of the chapter, and the techniques it discusses, later in the module.

Out-of-Class Rhetorical Analysis Resources

This is the first of the out-of-class rhetorical analysis papers that are required to pass the class. Before writing this paper, please review this introduction to rhetorical analysis (Links to an external site.), the rhetorical analysis prompt, and the rhetorical analysis sample paper.

Rhetorical Analysis papers that don’t demonstrate a fairly complete understanding of the concepts above, as well as those explained in They Say, I Say will not pass and will need to be resubmitted.

This paper is due the day the essay you are writing about is scheduled to be discussed. You chose that date in the Making Commitments exercise.

Rhetorical Analysis Discussion

If you have questions on how to do this essay, when it’s due, or anything similar, please check the earlier discussions below (which discussed this paper) and/or email me.

Critical Reading/Logic Handouts & Logical Fallacy Narrative Discussion

Discussion of Rhetorical Analysis Paper/Concept Paper

Skeptics May Object

This chapter is about anticipating and responding to objections.

Because writing a paper is not like making a post on Facebook (you can’t revise it, you can’t post responses to people who have questions or counter-arguments), you must anticipate questions and objections ahead of time. Questions that are important to peoples’ understanding should all be answered as quickly as possible, and the most important two or three objections should be brought up, described fairly, and responded to with your best evidence and arguments.

What questions or comments do you have about this chapter?

“Blue-Collar Brilliance”

What is Rose’s argument?

What rhetorical techniques does he use in his essay?

What evidence does he provide?

Are all the parts of his essay equally convincing? If not, which work best, and why? Does he provide too many examples, or not enough? Would he be served better by different choices, or do the ones in the essay work well?

“Shut up About Harvard”

I read FiveThirtyEight fairly regularly, and when I started this one I thought I knew where it was going, but I didn’t.

What is his thesis? What questions does he think are overvalued? Which questions does he think are being ignored?

How convincing do you find him? What rhetorical features do you think contribute to this conclusion, and why?

“On The Front Lines of the New Culture War”

This reads very much as its title predicts it will: a slice of life about people on a frontier, but in this case the conflict is cultural and not physical.

This is an argument. I suspect there is more than one major argument. What do you see as those arguments? Why do you think that?

How does Kolowich make his case? Does he fairly present both sides? What conclusions do you draw from the evidence he gives you?

Are there any ways he could have been more convincing? Is there anything that hurts his argument?

Introduction-9 (Due Date: July 13 and July 18)

This week we’ll be talking about why it’s important to be clear with your readers about why your topic matters, as well as the next section of readings, which explore our relationship with computers.

You should get your rhetorical analysis #1 graded in the next few weeks. Please make sure you read my comments, particularly if you got a “not ready” grade. All papers can be revised, but without knowing what I want, your revision won’t work.

Soon, I will start grading the first batch of concept papers.

Lastly, please keep in mind that those of you who want a B or better should be working on your Exhaustive Source Research Paper. You can ask questions about it in this week’s first discussion board.

Please remember to ask any questions you have in the first discussion on the chapter & things in general.

“So What? Who Cares?”

In this chapter they discuss the importance of clarifying for your readers that what you’re saying is important. They differentiate between the two techniques above, both of which are valuable. The first question really concerns how your argument relates to the bigger picture–how does it line up with things the audience already considers important. The second explores who would be the primary audience for the piece, and why it should matter to them.

The book also rightly argues that answering these questions well means that you’ve created a successful hook for your paper that will cause the audience to take more notice.

What questions do you have about the lesson or the class today?

“Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

What impact does Carr’s hook have on you (I ask because I think many of you have not seen 2001)?

Carr spends a lot of time casting doubt on his seeming thesis. Does this mean he’s just bad at making arguments (spoiler: no it doesn’t)? Assuming he’s doing it on purpose, and that it may not be a bad thing, what is the purpose of him regularly questioning his own arguments? Does it demonstrate specific, academic values? Does it help with his credibility? Is it about trying to be fair on an issue he feels is important, but that even very smart people can’t really clearly understand?

What is his most reliable or convincing evidence? Does he have any that isn’t? Does he make any rhetorical moves that you recognize with regard to his evidence?

“Smarter Than You Think: How Technology is Changing Our Minds For the Better”

Ok, what’s going on in this piece?

What’s Thompson’s primary topic/metaphor/evidence for this piece?

Does he talk about chess too much? What about when he shows how technology can tempt us to cheat–why would he include that idea?

I think he does build an interesting case about how technology makes people and machines both better at chess. What does he argue about the thinking process? What is the larger argument he builds from that? Is there anything problematic in his wanting to argue that all technology may work this way in the future? How might Carr (the previous author) respond to his bigger argument?

“Does Texting Affect Writing?”

Some of you will rightly criticize Cullington’s evidence for being potentially compromised or from samples which are too small. Look at the argument from the other direction. When she wrote this piece, she was perhaps a year or two passed you in college, but not much farther than that. If you sat down to write a similar argument, with similar evidence, how would you, realistically, do? With that in mind, how good is her evidence? How good is her presentation and reasoning about her evidence?

How convincing, ultimately, do you find her? Why do you feel the way you do (what did she do/fail to do)?

Rhetorical Analysis #1

This is the first of the out-of-class rhetorical analysis papers that are required to pass the class. Before writing this paper, please review this introduction to rhetorical analysis, the rhetorical analysis prompt (the prompt says the paper is due the week we discuss the reading–this is incorrect, but I don’t want to change it right now because I don’t have time to go in and check all the links to it–so please disregard that statement), and the rhetorical analysis sample paper.

Rhetorical Analysis papers that don’t demonstrate a fairly complete understanding of the concepts above, as well as those explained in They Say, I Say will not pass and will need to be resubmitted.

If you do not attempt this module you will not be able to pass the class.

Resources For Exhaustive Source Research Paper

You only need to do this paper if you’re going for an A or a B. The container to submit the paper will be in next week’s module.

The two most valuable pieces of information I can give you are the prompt and a student sample paper. Please read the prompt in it’s entirety, but the short version is that you should 1) look at what the person is qualified to speak to, 2) if that matches what they publicly comment on, 3) who their best audience might be based on their topic and writing style, 4) and if there are any things about their personal life that might them a particularly good or bad source.

As an example of an author you could look in to, and by the time you start this assignment, you may have been introduced to Charles Murray, who has been credibly accused of holding & advocating ideas which are subtlety (but still actually) racist, and that geneticists reject the part of his argument that includes their expertise and educators also deeply disagree with his idea that people are unchanging and can never grow or mature. For me, these issues ruin his credibility to speak on these matters.

This is a researched argument and must include sources.