Rhetorical Analysis Requirements
Your response should be an essay which is at least 3 paragraphs long. Your evidence should consist mainly of quotations from the essay, and your analysis and evaluation of those quotations.
Your thesis should probably be that the essay is 1) effective, 2) ineffective, or 3) partially effective in convincing the reader that the author’s world view is correct. You should follow this with a plan of development, laying out your arguments.
I wouldn’t worry about a hook, or a long summary at the end of the essay. While I often encourage synthesis, please DO NOT relate any long stories about your life in your response. That would miss the point of the question and get you a poor grade.
An example of an answer for a rhetorical analysis:
Rhetorical Analysis Presentation:
Three main tools of persuasion:
- Anecdotal Evidence/personal experience
- Authorities
- Contrast
Anecdotes:
Anecdotes are given to prove that the author has experience with what she is writing about, examples include are rampant. Her hook was used not only to pull the reader in, but show that she had experience with communicative applications:
“Last Sunday, I spent a lazy afternoon with my boyfriend. We chatted while I made brunch, discussed the books we were reading, laughed at some cat pictures and then settled down with dinner, before bidding each other good night. We did all of this despite living over 3,000 miles apart.”
After establishing this, she goes into more specific experience to demonstrate to the reader that it was not just one experience, but there were multiple. This was done so that the reader would find her credible and knowledgeable in this particular area.
“I prefer to use applications that already figure into my daily routine, like Google’s instant-messaging application, Gchat, as well as Facebook Messenger, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. This way, we can talk about travel plans while I’m waiting for the train or talk about what he’s making for dinner while I’m at work.”
This is all in the context of her relationship with a partner that is over 3,000 miles away. Meaning it is almost impossible to communicate with him face to face. Moreover, it is only possible to communicate with him due to these messaging and social apps.
- Authorities
In addition to the pathos/emotional appeal to the readers through her personal anecdotes to increase credibility, she provides a logos/logical appeal to further prove her credibility and persuade readers that social applications do positively impact interpersonal relations.
A couple of notable examples are found when she is explaining the business side of dating applications:
” The original HowAboutWe dating service was started in 2010 and has attracted two million users to date. But it had a business-model problem, said Aaron Schildkrout, one of the founders of HowAboutWe. The site lost users — and potential customers — once they were in a relationship. “The couples market is huge,” he said. He and his business partner were getting feedback from “couples who had met on the service but couldn’t use it anymore” and decided to build an application “to facilitate communication and interaction.”The new You & Me application lets two people send photographs and voice messages and play a selfie-exchanging game called “Halfsie.”
By explaining that the actual intent it to facilitate communication when they have already chosen a partner, prevents the reader from making the assumption(from more emotional roots) that the app developers are merely trying to make money. And because she chose to do this from a logical perspective, it persuades her readers of her main point, that applications can improve/ have a positive impact on interpersonal communications.
- Contrast
The last major method of persuasion that the author utilizes is contrast. This contrast is achieved by differentiating assumptions that are made about applications like this, as well as people who debate that these apps have a negative affect from the reality of it. This is done with Turkle’s argument and the preceding rebuttal of it:
Sherry Turkle, the author of “Alone Together,” says she believes that using an application in place of real-world, face-to-face interactions is having a detrimental effect on how we prioritize offline communication and, potentially, on our ability to interact even when we aren’t relying on technology as a mediator. “We’ve given ourselves something so gratifying that we can forget other ways we can communicate,” she said. “What starts out being better than nothing becomes better than anything.”Ms. Turkle, who is researching the impact of technology on communication, said technology-saturated types could “forget what a face-to-face interaction can do.” She says she is not opposed to messaging applications, but she cautions that their most frequent users should be aware of the potential impact.In my experience, however, I’ve found the opposite to be true, especially as more and more of my daily interactions with friends, colleagues and family happen through a screen. If anything, the pervasiveness of technology in my life has heightened my desire for actual one-on-one meetings.Anyone who spends much time online and on a smartphone knows that it’s no substitute for the real thing — it’s just an appetizer that can delight and satisfy until the main course arrives. But that satisfaction is real.Although I am using a vast array of apps to deal with a real challenge — trying to date someone who lives on a different continent — they still hold their appeal when that distance is erased. Even when we’re both in the same city for an extended time, we still use them, albeit to a lesser degree and not to the detriment of spending actual time together.In many cases, adding the Internet to the mix can strengthen a relationship over all, because online interactions have their own kind of entertaining rapport that can coexist with their offline counterparts.
In conclusion, Wortham’s article is compelling and persuasive that social communicative apps have a positive affect on interpersonal communication by using anecdotal evidence, authorities, and contrast.
