San Antonio College Disability and the Media Prescriptions for Change Question

By now you’ve gotten pretty good at rhetorical analysis. For this assignment, you’ll be analyzing another essay or article.

Your analysis should be 2 to 3 pages long, double-spaced, with a header, in-text citations as needed, and single Work Cited at the end. Use the MLA Format (Attached)

Your goal is to analyze one work in rhetorical terms and decide whether or not the artist achieved his or her persuasive goal.

In your essay, answer as many of these questions as are applicable (they may not all apply, depending on which work you choose to analyze):

• What is the purpose or main point of the argument? What did the artist or advertiser hope to achieve?
• Was the argument timely and important?
• Who was the intended audience?
• Do you find any rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and/or logos)?
• Did the writer use any literary techniques, a particular style, language choices, or special effects to enhance the argument’s effectiveness?
• In your opinion, did the artist(s) or advertiser achieve his/her/their goal?
  • Was it convincing? Did the argument succeed?

This analysis should be written in your own voice. You are welcome to use “I” because you are the analyst. Don’t bullet or number your paragraphs or sentence as they are in the instructions above. Please DO spell-check and proof-read your work before you submit it.

Use quotes and paraphrases from the article or essay as needed to support your analysis. Be sure to include MLA format in-text citations and a single Work Cited listing at the end.

Choose ONE of the following essays or articles to read and analyze (IVE ATTACHED THE PIECES FROM THE BOOK):

• Riley II, Charles A. “Disability and the Media: Prescriptions for Change.” Everything’s an Argument with Readings, 7th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 527 – 531.
• Steele, Claude M. “An Introduction: At the Root of Identity, from Whistling Vivaldi and Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us,” parts 1 and 2, Everything’s an Argument with Readings, 7th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 537 – 542.
• Michaels, Walter Benn. “The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality.” Everything’s an Argument with Readings, 7th ed., Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 725 – 730.

• .Refer to the grading rubric to understand exactly what is required on this assignment and how it will be graded.
• ———–
• ———–
• ———–

• Rubric

  Rhetorical Analysis – Article or Essay

  Rhetorical Analysis – Article or Essay

  Criteria	Ratings	Pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLength	5 ptsPerfect 3 ptsCloseAbout 1/2 page too short or too long 2 ptsToo short or too longMore than 1/2 page too short or too long 0 ptsDid Not Submit	5 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent	5 ptsPerfectFour (or more) complete paragraphs 3 ptsNeeds ImprovementFewer than four paragraphs 0 ptsDid Not Submit	5 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntro Paragraph	5 ptsExcellentAll listed components were addressed. 4 ptsGoodMost components were addressed; no more than one missing or unclear. 2 ptsNeeds WorkTwo or more components were not addressed or were unclear. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	5 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis of Rhetorical Appeals	15 ptsExcellentAll listed components were addressed. 12 ptsGoodMost components were addressed; no more than one missing or unclear. 6 ptsNeeds WorkTwo or more components were not addressed or were unclear, and/or paragraph does not contain a quote or paraphrase from the article. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	15 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis of Writing Style	15 ptsExcellentAll listed components were addressed. 12 ptsGoodMost components were addressed; no more than one missing or unclear. 6 ptsNeeds WorkTwo or more components were not addressed or were unclear, and/or paragraph does not contain a quote or paraphrase from the article. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	15 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConcluding Paragraph	5 ptsExcellentContains a short summary of your analysis (not a summary of the article) and clearly states whether or not you found the author’s argument convincing. 3 ptsNeeds WorkContains a short summary of the article instead of a summary of your analysis and/or does not clearly state whether or not you found the author’s argument convincing. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	5 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn-text Citations	10 ptsPerfect or Nearly PerfectCongratulations, MLA master! 8 ptsVery GoodOnly minor errors. 6 ptsGood But . . .1-2 citations missing or repeated in-text citation format errors. 2 ptsLack of In-Text CitationsQuotes or paraphrases used but without any in-text citations. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	10 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEssay Format	10 ptsExcellentGreat job! 8 ptsPretty GoodOnly minor errors. 6 ptsPretty GoodMissing one component (such as header) or one serious error (such as 1.25″ margins). Otherwise good. 4 ptsMany ErrorsMissing more than one component or has more than one major error in formatting. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	10 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeStyle, Readability, Grammar, Punctuation, Spelling	15 ptsGreat!This analysis was delightful to read and had few or no errors. 12 ptsVery goodA very nice analysis with a few problems that could be easily corrected. 9 ptsGoodMostly readable and enjoyable but stylistically lacking or with some errors that detracted overall. 6 ptsNeeds WorkMajor errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, or style that detracted from the overall readability. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	15 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeA True Rhetorical Analysis	10 ptsExcellentTruly analyzed the work (article) and not the issue. 6 ptsOccasionally Strayed Off-TopicGenerally analyzed the work (article) but occasionally strayed into analysis of your own beliefs on the subject. 2 ptsOff-TopicRather than analyzing the work (article), this assignment focused mostly or entirely on your own beliefs on the subject. 0 ptsDid Not Submit	10 pts
  This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTimeliness	5 ptsSubmitted on Time 0 ptsSubmitted Late or Not Submitted	5 pts
  Total Points: 100