Select Page

Follow instructions WORD BY WORD Please see and understand what he exactly needs in this essay, Last time I had to rewrite everything! PROJECT #2: ANALYZING RHETORICALSTRATEGIES IN TWO TEXTSCONTEXT:For your previous essay, you walked through Shulevtiz’s argument and analyzed her claims and evidence. For this paper, you will still analyze; however, you will focus your analysis on the rhetorical strategies that two writers use to progress their arguments. After reading “Dear Class of 2020,” “Don’t Blame Students for BeingHypersensitive,” “Students Deserve Safe Spaces,” “I’m Northwestern’s President,” and “College Campuses Should Not Be Safe Spaces,” your job is to choose two texts and analyze how they appeal to ethos, pathos, logos, and/or kairos to advance their arguments. You can think of this essay as a compare/contrast.o Who are they? What is their credibility?▪ What do we know about their texts? Identify both authors’ overall argument What is the argument?▪ How do you know? Is it stated directly? Implicitly? Identify the audience for each texto How do you know?▪ What details from the text point to the type of audience the author has in mind?o How does the audience influence how the text is written and perceived? Analyze & Evaluate the rhetorical strategies each author uses to advance their claims & overall argumentoWhat types of evidence does each author use? Logic, emotional, credible, timely?▪ Why does the rhetorical strategy advance/hinder their overall argument?• How?ASSIGNMENT:You will need to account for the following elements (though they do not need to be approached in this particular order. Additionally, your essay should not read as though you are simply answering these questions. Identify both authors & their textsIMPORTANT DETAILS:4-5 pagesMLA FormatMLA Works Cited PageEVALUATION CRITERIA:→ Comprehension o Effectively addresses all aspects of the prompto Fully grasps both articles and showcases knowledge cogently→ DevelopmentDetails/analyzes chosen texts thoroughly and thoughtfullyWriter thoroughly address elements of the argument, including author, context, audience, purpose, claims, and evidence.Analysis of rhetorical strategies is thoroughDue: March 19th by midnight on Blackboard→ Organizationo Essay flows logically from introduction → body → conclusiono Sentence level organization is strong→ Expression/Mechanics/Grammar▪ Writer uses appropriate syntax, grammar, punctuationIMPORTANT DATES:02.19: Intro to Project/Reading “Dear Class of 2020”/Rhetorical Appeals02.26: In class reading/charting activities/synthesizing texts03.05: Drafting Activities03.12: Peer Review Workshop—Must complete in classSLOS:→ Develop an effective process of reading for comprehension→ Develop an effective writing process—including prewriting, drafting, revision, and self-evaluation→ Analyze the elements of academic texts—particularly argument, genre, audience, context, purpose, and strategies→ Articulate in writing key rhetorical concepts.


Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay




Unformatted Attachment Preview

Aristotelian Appeals: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos
Whenever you read an argument, ask yourself, “Is this persuasive? Why?” There are many ways to
appeal to an audience. Among them are appealing to logos, ethos, and pathos. These appeals are
identifiable in almost all arguments.
To Appeal to LOGOS
(logic, reasoning)
To Develop ETHOS
(character, ethics)
: the argument itself; the
reasoning the author uses; logical
: how an author builds credibility
& trustworthiness
Types of LOGOS Appeals
Ways to Develop ETHOS

Theories/scientific facts
Indicated meanings or
reasons (because…)
Literal or historical
Factual data & statistics
Citations from experts &
Informed opinions
Examples (real life
Personal anecdotes

Author’s profession/
Author’s publication
Appearing sincere, fair
minded, knowledgeable
Conceding to opposition
where appropriate
Appropriate language for
audience and subject
Appropriate vocabulary
Correct grammar
Professional format
To Appeal to PATHOS
: words or passages an author
uses to activate audience
Types of PATHOS Appeals

Emotionally loaded
Vivid descriptions
Emotional examples
Anecdotes, testimonies,
or narratives about
emotional experiences or
Figurative language
Emotional tone (humor,
sarcasm, disappointment,
excitement, etc.)
Effect on Audience
Effect on Audience
Evokes a cognitive, rational
response. Readers get a sense of,
“Oh, that makes sense” or “Hmm,
that really doesn’t prove
Helps reader to see the author as
reliable, trustworthy, competent,
and credible. The reader might
respect the author or his/her
How to Talk About It
How to Talk About It
How to Talk About It
The author appeals to logos by
defining relevant terms and then
supports his claim with numerous
citations from authorities.
Through his use of scientific
terminology, the author builds his
ethos by demonstrating expertise.
When referencing 9/11, the
author is appealing to pathos.
Here, he is eliciting both sadness
and anger from his readers.
The author’s use of statistics and
expert testimony are very
convincing logos appeals.
The author’s ethos is effectively
developed as readers see that he is
sympathetic to the struggles
minorities face.
Effect on Audience
Evokes an emotional response.
Persuasion by emotion.
(usually evoking fear, sympathy,
empathy, anger,)
The author’s description of the
child with cancer was a very
persuasive appeal to pathos.
Students deserve safe spaces on campus (essay)
Submitted by Matthew Pratt Guterl on August 29, 2016 – 3:00am
I teach at an elite Ivy League university, where, for several years now, debates over free speech,
racial justice and diversification have been explosive. Last year was, in a word, rough. Following
several high profile police shootings, there were protests and hunger strikes and sit-ins nationally,
and our own campus was turned upside down by two incendiary opinion pieces in the student
newspaper and a disturbing, physical encounter between a visiting student and the campus police.
As an institution, we struggled, worked hard, changed some things right away, and made some big
claims and promises about our future.
In just a few days, our students will return to the classrooms. They will expect an engaged faculty
and will want new classes addressing contemporary social and political issues. Together, we will be
looking to solve problems. At times, too, they will be hoping for some kind genuflection to their
humanity, their youth and the dark, merciless world in which we live. In short, they will be looking for
exactly the sort of “safe space” that other faculty members at other universities — like the dean of
students at the University of Chicago — have closed off as merely self-serving “retreats” [1] for the
I hope that at the end of the day, Chicago’s cold, Darwinian approach will be an outlier nationally -and that students almost everywhere will be received this academic year more graciously, more
thoughtfully and more constructively than those who imagine such things. Because, in the end, we
will all need each other to do the work that must be done. And that work is not some sort of
Thunderdome, in which two ideas do battle until one survives. This is a crucial moment for higher
education, and the brisk response from Chicago reveals the stakes clearly. We — faculty members,
students, administrators and our publics — are actually on the verge of making significantly more
comprehensive adjustments to the mission of higher education than were made previously. We
should embrace those more dynamic, more revolutionary changes and drive them home.
One of the big, challenging reforms is the notion of a “safe space” for our students, a concept that is
both old and new and nearly impossible to define. It can mean a single room on a campus, the floor
of a building or an entire center or department. It can refer to the presence of trained counselors,
the support of friends and allies, or the absence of hurtful material. Our students deserve such
spaces on a campus because the absence of such spaces is counter to the very mission of higher
In surveying the groundwork, however, not everyone thinks higher education is on the right track,
especially when attention turns to race. The dean at the University of Chicago is not alone. Critics
dismiss protesting students as spoiled, “self-infantilizing,” pampered brats [2], and they imagine that,
by responding to their complaints and taking them seriously, universities are abrogating their
mission to foster an unregulated exchange of ideas. A vocal handful of faculty members worry that
their free speech — or, on a lower frequency, their academic freedom — is under siege. Videos of
student’s screaming at white faculty members and administrators circulate on right-wing blogs and
websites as proof. Some donors, as [3]The [3] New York Times [3] reports [3], complain that universities
are now spending too much money on diversity, leading to a noticeable downward turn in giving this
past year.
In this context, “safe space” is too easily parodied – as the Onion did, with its headline from July of
2015, “Parents Dedicate Safe Space on Campus in Honor of Daughter Who Felt Weird in Class
Once.” [4] Too easily parodied — and too easily undone, as well, as the recent decision [5] by Michigan
State University to open a “women’s only” space to men reveals. The solution to our student’s
weakness, so many critics all too often suggest, is bold, direct, repeated engagement with ideas
that civil society has already deemed noxious, hateful and politically dangerous.
Setting aside the parodies and the critiques, there is a sound reason to support a broader, more
comprehensive notion of safety, something that might be pushed to the very boundaries of our
campuses: the world is sometimes breathtakingly, violently, terrifyingly precarious for precisely the
sorts of students whom we are now actively recruiting.
Colleges and universities are, pop culture tells us repeatedly, supposed to be walled off. No wonder,
then, that students see higher education institutions as both a staging ground for their protests and
as a possible idyll. No wonder, too, that they keenly sense the distance between what was promised
in glossy brochures — a removed experience, a free space for serious conversation — and what was
delivered in the strange environs of a new town or city far from home — more of the same social and
political pressures, more of the same violence, whether discursive or physical. Indeed, what they
read in the words of those who champion “free speech” — which almost always seems to mean the
freedom to speak of things consistently defined as backward or troubling — is that many would like a
very different “safe space,” in which one can say racist or sexist things without consequence.
The insistent request for administrators and faculty members to “do something”– to rename a
building, to remove a mural, to replace a mascot, to disarm the campus police, to disinvite a
speaker — is a plea to create the conditions where this promised distance was once again possible,
to clear cut a firebreak between the dystopian “real world” and the contemplative, even monkish
world of study. But it is also to acknowledge a real world in which these icons have led violent
charges, to recognize a physical world in which there are disenfranchised people of color for whom
these things are reminders of real pain. To paraphrase one university president, [6] students need
safe spaces in order to acquire the dangerous knowledge they need.
The safety we want — that campus-wide, reflective, self-aware distance from the grit of the everyday
— is going to be hard to manufacture. As anyone with a smartphone knows, new digital technologies
and a proliferation of social media outlets have allowed the enduring, everyday violence of racism to
be broadcast, to be felt by so many all at once, in ways that are powerful. Those same technologies
have also fostered new social connections, creating the movements and communities that mount
these critiques. Social media lets us see absence, too.
The development, in the decades since the Civil Rights Movement, of antiseptic, color-blind
institutional racism means, as well, that while we see racism online — and in person — we see far
less justice than we once did. Vigilante shooters go unpunished. Mass incarceration is further
entrenched. Military technologies, distributed to the police, get ever more sophisticated and punitive.
In mounting their protests, students are driven by a sober-minded concern about the conditions of
everyday life because they have been living in the midst of everything, touched personally or
emotionally by violence or poverty or loss or disenfranchisement. These days, it seems, one simply
cannot escape the blaring headlines and vivid color photos that program algorithms put in your feed.
Maybe the extraordinary penetration of digital media into our campuses requires us to work harder
at being more mindful in other ways, in other forms of engagement. Maybe it puts more of a burden
on us to be kind, to be gentle, to be supportive. Maybe it should force us to understand, more
broadly, the lived experiences of our students before they arrive. Maybe, finally, it should mean that
when we, as members of a community, invoke our right to “free speech,” we don’t do so in defense
of obnoxious, cruel and broken-down ideas. At the very least, we should proactively work to create
such spaces before things go awry.
“Safe space” seems like a pretty rarified concept, of course. And, to some, it reads as an expression
of privilege [7]. I admit that absolute safety is an impossible construct, because learning requires risk.
But not all risks are equal, and there is a difference between a campus shuttle to get around a city
and a campus commitment to the broadest possible notion of safety. My colleagues and friends
teaching in Texas are strategizing, right this second, about how to teach with a gun in the classroom
or how to discuss a “grade” with a student who might be packing. Mothers and fathers sending their
daughters off to college are rightly concerned about rape and sexual violence. Parents of color are
worried that their children might get profiled, arrested, roughed up or much, much worse. I am
concerned, as a faculty member, as a parent, and as a human being about teaching a class on race
and racism knowing that every single student in the room has seen Eric Garner, Alton Sterling and
too many others die in vivid Technicolor. Concerned, too, that at any moment a news alert might pop
up on our phones about the next disaster.
Faculty members and administrators thus have a calling to act. Without delay. To remove that racist
mural and relocate it to a museum. To rename that building and historicize the old name. (If you
have to raise the money to do it, there are examples where that has worked [8]). To practice
discernment in scheduling talks or speakers, so that we don’t bring that bigot, thug or provocateur to
the campus just to win a news cycle or to get your think tank in the paper. To prioritize ideas and
visitors who are actively, constructively engaged in solving (and not making) social problems. To
recommit to the historic, ancient role of the university as a site of knowledge production and to do
what must be done to build, in the age of social media, a campus that feels removed and distant,
yet also grounded and aware.
It is not our job to make intellectual noise — a raucous debate, a clashing set of ideas, a hurtful
back-and-forth — just because we can. It is our job, as stewards of the very idea of the university, to
think hard, at some distance, about big problems and to provide material solutions. After all, every
unread essay or delayed book has consequences, every missing word defers a social change, and
every abbreviated paper or poorly-written research project stalls those solutions. The crucial thing is
to get ahead of the curve: to read the campus as it presently exists, to think in explicitly utopian
terms about what it might look like, and to move towards this new ideal well in advance of some
dramatic event or hurtful misdeed.
Matthew Pratt Guterl is chair of American studies and professor of Africana studies, American
studies and ethnic studies at Brown University.
Diversity [9]
Editorial Tags:
Student life [10]
Image Caption:
University of Chicago
Source URL:
1. Find out about the author’s background, profession, previous work, etc.
2. Will the audience know who the writer is? If not, how does the writer signal her standing
in a community or profession? How does the writer signal her expertise?
3. Does the writer seem knowledgeable? Honest? What makes you think so?
4. What/who does the writer like and dislike?
5. How might the writer’s status (inherited or invented) affect the audience’s willingness to
believe, trust or identify with the writer?
6. Can you find places where the writer makes comments that indicate honesty, sincerity,
fair-mindedness, expertise, likeability, moral vision etc.?
7. What does the author do to gain the respect and trust of the audience, and how well does
she do this?
8. Can you find places where the writer makes concession to opposing arguments, indicating
fair-mindedness, or an absence of this (indicating the author fails to acknowledge other
points of view)?
9. Does the author explain how she came upon the evidence and support presented in her
argument? (If she does not, this may undermine ethos).
10. Does the writer do things to show she shares values and background with the audience?
How effective is this?
11. What seem to be the writer’s biases?
12. What seems to be the writer’s tone and mood? (angry, helpful, condescending, sarcastic,
funny, etc.)
13. What would it be like to spend time in this writer’s company?
1. What emotions does the author express?
2. How do word choice, examples, stories, categories, and descriptions express emotions?
3. What emotions does the author aim to cultivate in her audience in particular parts of the
4. How does she try to make us feel? How does this advance her purpose and her efforts at
What evidence does the writer present that seems logical?
Does the writer include any statistics or data to support their claims?
Does the argument make logical sense? Do they lead you to a logical conclusion?
Do you have a rational response to the information being presented?
Does the writer use current information or are their examples outdated?
Why does the writer address the topic at the time they do?
When was the text published and how does that affect the message?
Does the author refer to specific time periods or dates?


The Washington Post
I’m Northwestern’s
president. Here’s why safe
spaces for students are
By Morton Schapiro January 15, 2016
Morton Schapiro is president of Northwestern University.
College presidents have always received a lot of mail. But these days we get more than ever. Much of it relates to student unrest,
and most of the messages are unpleasant.
Our usual practice is to thank the sender for writing and leave it at that. The combination of receiving more than 100 emails and
letters a day and recognizing that the purpose of many writers is to rebuke, rather than discuss, leaves us little choice about how
to respond.
But that certainly doesn’t mean we don’t think long and hard about the issues being raised. Some writers ask why our campus is
so focused on how “black lives matter.” Others express a mixture of curiosity and rage about microaggressions and trigger
warnings. And finally, what about those oft-criticized “safe spaces”? On this last topic, here are two stories. The first was told to
me privately by another institution’s president, and the second takes place at my institution, Northwestern University.
A group of black students were having lunch together in a campus dining hall. There were a couple of empty seats, and two
white students asked if they could join them. One of the black students asked why, in light of empty tables nearby. The reply was
that these students wanted to stretch themselves by engaging in the kind of uncomfortable learning the college encourages. The
black students politely said no. Is this really so scandalous?
I find two aspects of this story to be of particular interest.
First, the familiar question is “Why do the black students eat together in the cafeteria?” I think I have some insight on this based
on 16 years of living on or near a college campus: Many groups eat together in the cafeteria, but people seem to notice only when
the students are black. Athletes often eat with athletes; fraternity and sorority members with their Greek brothers and sisters; a
cappella group members with fellow singers; actors with actors; marching band members with marchin …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP