Paper 2: Rhetorical Analysis Compare & Contrast
Now that you know how to rhetorically analyze a source’s argument and select details and evidence showing how and why the argument succeeds or fails based on the strength of the writer/speaker’s credibility and his or her appeal to the audience’s logic and emotions, we move on to Paper #2.
For Assignment #2, you will begin to work more directly with arguments surrounding your particular science/technology issue in the form of a four to five page (1200-1500 words) academic essay. You will compare and contrast the efficacy of two arguments in two different sources, one more academic in nature and the other more popular. Your essay should break apart the arguments in the articles in order to identify any similarities or differences in the arguments and to analyze what those similarities or differences might represent, reveal, or demonstrate.
On a general level, the purpose of Assignment #2 is to further develop your information literacy and critical thinking skills as you begin to work with multiple sources. More specifically, Assignment #2 encourages you to more readily identify similarities and differences in multiple arguments and to translate those observations into insightful and sophisticated discussions of the particulars or elements of those arguments through in-depth and thorough analyses. Finally, Assignment #2 asks that you begin to understand how to narrow down an impressively large and controversial conversation, like medicalization, into smaller and specific conversations as a means of constructing your own effective arguments.
You need to find two sources for this paper. One source should come from any legitimate publication, including reliable newspapers, academic journals, or other reliable mediums. The other source should come from a popular medium, such as blogs, chat rooms, YouTube videos, or discussion forums. While you have a good degree of choice in the sources you use, one source must be found using one of the library databases while the other can come from a general internet search.
Try to find sources that specifically discuss the same issue. For the paper itself, remember that you are focusing on analyzing and evaluating the arguments; you are not taking a stance on medicalization at this point. Therefore, your rhetoric should be more “truth-seeking” than “persuasion” based. We would strongly encourage you to visit the English Center in order to review a draft and to visit us during office hours concerning this paper.
Specifics and Worth:
Citation—Include a properly formatted Works Cited page and incorporate appropriate in-text citations.
Length— 1200-1500 words
Worth—10% of final grade
Peer Review: A complete rough draft of this paper is due for peer review on Wednesday, February 15
Conference: A complete Rough Draft of this paper is due for conferencing by Friday, February 17
Final Draft: The final draft for this paper is due Wednesday, February 22th