Description
Topics: For this paper, you will be selecting one of the following articles (do a Google search on how to avoid paywalls if necessary)- “Toxic Masculinity Is a Harmful Myth”, “Why I Think Students Should Cheat”, “AI Will Make Human Art More Valuable”, “Professors’ Pet Peeves”, and “I’ve Been a Critical Race Theorist for 30 Years . . . .” You will then complete an analysis determining whether the article is well written or poorly written using, primarily, the rhetorical appeals. You may also analyze effectiveness in terms of logical fallacies or general writing structures (organizational and transitional components, theses, etc.), but at least two of the rhetorical appeals must be discussed in the paper. Utilize the formula discussed in the “Thesis Statements and the Hourglass Model” section for the foundation of your thesis statement and incorporate the inverted pyramid, hourglass model, and topic/transition sentences as discussed in class. You may respond using first person if you so choose.
Technical aspects: Your paper cannot exceed 4 pages unless approved by me. It must use size 12, Times New Roman font and it needs to be double-spaced (no more, no less) with 1″ margins all around. You must include at least the source you are assessing. Including other sources is up to you; however, all sources used must be cited in accordance with MLA provisions (parenthetical citations as well as a Works Cited page). EVEN IF YOU PARAPHRASE OR BORROW IDEAS FROM SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK, IT MUST BE CITED. . In addition, presenting work generated by artificial intelligence as one’s own work is considered to be academically dishonest. For guidelines, see this website. You may also consult your MLA handbook or our syllabus but this requirement will be discussed more thoroughly during week 2.
the first pdf WRT_102.33 is a example
docx document is my own article. I only wrote the first two paragraphs. To modify and improve my article, I need a complete rhetorical analysis. Complete as described above, no more than 4 pages.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Student’s last name 1
Student’s name
Professor Towers-Kubik
Writing 102 – 32
11 February 2015
Essay 1: Rhetorical Analysis
Today’s generation is surrounded by multimillion dollar corporations, cars, and houses. Economic
prosperity has allowed for us to accomplish remarkable feats as a society and has made us more
interconnected than ever before. There is a downside to this high level of economic prosperity, however.
According to journalist Esther Hsieh, that downside is that our generation is more egocentric than past
generations. Her article, “Kids These Days Really Are More Egocentric” ties this wave of egocentrism to
economic prosperity, which she claims to have a direct relationship with the levels of egocentrism within
American society. As a part of this generation myself, this is a trend I have observed myself and so this is
a claim I strongly agree with. An analysis of Hsieh’s argument reveals that she effectively communicates
her idea through a corroboration of reputable sources and logical, fact based experiments though lacking a
direct connection to her audience.
Hsieh starts off with a very clear and concise thesis; “American society has steadily become more
egocentric since the nation’s beginnings”(Hsieh). A clear aim is always necessary when trying to deliver a
particular message. She then goes on to talk about today’s economic prosperity, which she immediately
ties to this new wave of egocentrism. Right off the bat the reader is aware of what she is trying to prove,
and how she is trying to prove it. This definitely helps in the effectiveness of her piece. Also, in an appeal
to ethos, she uses various reputable sources throughout her article. Organizations such as the University of
Michigan, Institute for Social Research at Michigan, and both science journals Psychological Science and
Personality and Individual Differences serve to create a trustworthy atmosphere for the reader.
Personality and Individual Difference is the “official journal of the International Society for the Study of
Student’s last name 2
Individual Difference” (Vernon). Also, the Psychological Science journal is the “highest ranked empirical
journal in psychology” (“Psychological Science”). In a classic appeal to ethos, one is now more inclined
to believe what he or she reads because it comes from such a credible source, whether it be the University
of Michigan or either one of these journals.
Apart from having credible sources of information in her piece, she also explains how she, and
other academics, arrived at the conclusion claiming egocentrism is tied to economic prosperity. Firstly,
she describes an observational study developed by the University of Michigan, where State of the Union
Addresses were examined for usage of words of self-interest. This is an example of her utilization of both
ethos and logos. She explains how to study was done, and relates the facts back to her thesis. The
impactful aspect of including this observational study is that one can repeat the study on their own to
double-check the results. Doing a study such as this one, where anyone can possibly challenge the results,
shows a certain level of certainty and transparency. The State of the Union Addresses are all online, one
can easily access them, and conduct their own search for words of self-interest. Hsieh demonstrates a
particular degree of confidence in the results by writing about them in her article. Such confidence does
not go unnoticed by a reader, and ends up fortifying her claim.
In addition to the study done by the University of Michigan, there was also mention of a very
large experimental study done by Professor Emily Bianchi. This study allowed for the same conclusion:
that economic prosperity has a direct relationship with the level of egocentrism within a society. This
experiment included an appeal to both ethos and logos. Bianchi is a professor at Emory University’s
Goizueta Business School and so her status establishes her as a credible source. Bianchi’s experiment
used participants who were “18 – 83 years of age” (Hsieh), meaning there were people in this study who
were born as far back as the 1920’s. She administered two types of personality tests and then used
unemployment rates to distinguish between times of economic boom and recession. The results once
again prove Hsieh’s thesis to be true. The logical nature of this experiment is where the strength lies. Her
Student’s last name 3
usage of test subjects from a wide range of years and her measuring of unemployment rates demonstrate a
clear appeal to logos. Professor Bianchi’s experiment also included an investigation of CEO
compensation, yet another way in which she appealed to logos. This will most likely be more accepted by
readers due to its real-world application and current relevance. Hsieh writes:
Using data from 2,095 CEOs, she found that those who were emerging adults during
economic booms had a compensation that was 2.3 times higher than their second top
executive, versus a difference of 1.7 for those who came of age in less prosperous times
(Hsieh).
Hsieh logically appeals to her audience by including the numeric results of Bianchi’s experiment. This
serves to be the more effective part including this experiment.
The less effective aspect to this experimental study lies in its ambiguity, as Hsieh does not explain
much about the details. While Bianchi establishes her credibility because of her professional status, one is
inclined to question the personality tests she used. Hsieh does not disclose much information about the
intricacies of these tests, and so the results hold less merit and are less credible. There are also many
questions with regard to her study of CEO compensations as well. For example, the fields which these
CEOs worked were not specified, and could end up being a variable that makes a big difference in the
results. Thus, Hsieh again compromises the credibility of her work. Both the observational and
experimental studies aid in the effectiveness of this article because it allows the reader to see the
derivation and proof of her thesis, however it is problematic that she does not disclose more information
about them. Hsieh needed to go into more detail about exactly how these experiments were set up in order
to give her argument more credibility. Hsieh appeals to logos and ethos properly, however her lack of
transparency ends up being one of her bigger problems.
Seeing as how I personally agree with Hsieh’s claim I am somewhat subjective in my approach to
this article, although I do believe including an appeal to pathos would have made her argument more
Student’s last name 4
effective. Firstly, she did not include any direct quotations from a person from this generation to support
her claim. It would have been great for the believability of her message if she interviewed someone from
this generation, and had included that person’s thoughts about what she is trying to convey. It would also
have been great to interview a person who lived through the Great Depression or lived through other
times of economic recession, and include that person’s thoughts on her claim. It is one thing to have
academic sources and proof for a claim, but it is another thing to have a source that is relatable. I would
argue a lot of times the latter would have a greater impact, seeing as how people tend to believe those who
are similar to them. A direct quotation from someone who is not an authority figure included amongst the
academic opinions would have created the perfect balance for this piece, wherein it would include a little
bit of everything.
Writing such as this is important because it allows our society to identify our flaws and fix them.
Hsieh’s appeal to ethos and logos is convincing, while the lack of transparency and an appeal to pathos
hinders her argument. Her thesis is clearly stated, and is backed up by a series of studies done by
prestigious institutions. While effective, this article could have been more impactful if Hsieh brought it
back, full circle, to the generation she is writing about. Nonetheless, she put the idea out there and, at the
very least, has planted the seed of reevaluation in the soil of our generation.
Student’s last name 5
Works Cited
Hsieh, Esther. “Kids These Days Really Are More Egocentric.” Scientificamerican.com.
Scientific American, 16 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
“Psychological Science.” Sage Journals. Psychological Science, n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2015.
http://pss.sagepub.com/
Vernon, T., ed. “Personality and Individual Difference.” Elsevier. Elsevier, n.d. Web. 28 Feb.
2015. http://www.journals.elsevier.com/personality-and-individual-differences/
If you understand what CRT actually is, though, it’s easy to see that it
has nothing to do with the cartoonish picture of reverse racism that its
critics depict. And, more importantly, CRT is a pretty good lens for
understanding why the campaign against it has been able to spread so
fast.
I don’t really like this paragraph because it says if you understand what
CRT really is. It explains what CRT is at the bottom of this paragraph
but I don’t like the way it’s written. I prefer to explain clearly what CRT
is first, and I think that readers will be more interested in reading your
article after they have a certain understanding of the topic.
As a law professor closely associated with the critical race theory
movement for more than 30 years, I am astonished. Most academic work
never gets noticed at all, and ours is being publicly vilified, even banned.
I prefer this paragraph, which echoes with the title and brings out my
own identity and more scholars to make my article more credible and
easier to resonate with readers.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
