This is my paper for the comparative rhetorical analysis exercise. Could you help me to fix it, as the discussion should be more about the rhetoric, not the topic (mine is leaning toward the topic, which is not what the professor wants). And I think my conclusion is not good enough, it is bad, but I do not have any idea about it…
I have attached the rubric of the last assignment (Rhetorical analysis) the structure is quite similar to this assignment’s rubric (I believe, cause the professor would not show any rubric after she graded it, I do not know why she did that).
Notes from the professor below:
For the Comparative Rhetorical Analysis (CRA) paper, you will focus on one point of argument or
contention currently up for debate within your topic area represented in a non-text source. While our
ALR paper wanted to cover a wide breadth of the ongoing conversation, the CRA paper will pay very
close attention to just one particularly contentious thread of that conversation. This should be a specific
aspect of the debate around the topic you chose (for example, pro- versus anti-abortion is too vague;
we’re looking more for those who believe a fetus counts as a human versus those who do not).
What rhetorical strategies are used within that thread? Are they working? How do different media
outlets represent this aspect of the argument? How is the argument presented in congressional hearings?
Are different voices representing the same truth in completely different ways? Are there several different
“truths” among advocates of your chosen issue? How is each side attempting to convince the world that
their truth is the truth? You will conduct a comparative rhetorical analysis of two to three sources
discussing one of the main arguments within your issue topic of choice.
adminX
Subject expert at Treatisely.