Rhetorical Analysis

For your first essay for the class, you will be writing a 3-5 page rhetorical analysis of an article of your choosing. You should write a cohesive essay that carefully examines the situation, purpose, claims and audience of the article and analyzes how those aspects of the article are working together to serve the author’s purpose. To begin, you should choose an article to read, annotate, and analyze that addresses a question (or inquiry) that you have. The question can come out of work we’ve done this semester in class or from a separate interest about which you would like to read. The article should be long enough that you can write a 3-5 page rhetorical analysis of it. In other words, at least two pages. Read and carefully annotate your article, identifying the situation that motivated the author to write, the author’s purpose, major and minor claims that the author makes, and the intended audience for the piece. Note whether or not you feel the author uses these aspects to make a successful argument, and why. Once you’ve analyzed the article, your analysis should be written up as a cohesive essay. It should: Give a short summary of what the article is about. No more than a paragraph. Be specific, and assume that your own audience hasn’t read the article. Make a claim of its own about the effectiveness of the article in question and support that claim with analysis of how the parts of the article are working together. Include examples from the article to back up your point. Be well-organized. Give the author’s name and refer to the author by his/her last name throughout the article. Provide context for the article in the form of information about where and in what type of publication the article originally appeared. I am not looking for a list of the parts of the essay. Instead, I’m looking for you to examine how those parts are, or are not, working together. You should not use the first person. This is an analytical essay and should employ vocabulary and tone appropriate to academic writing. It is not a personal response to the article