aristotelian criticism 125 points technical requirements 5 B u s i n e s s F i n a n c e
Paper One: Neo-Aristotelian Criticism
5-6 pages in length
Font: 12-point, Times New Roman
Spacing: Double Spaced
APA-style in-text citations
At least four sources in addition to the rhetorical artifact.
Due dates are listed in your syllabus.
Selecting a Topic
In this paper, students will analyze a political speech. Make sure that what you select involves enough content for a 5-6-page paper.
Before you Write
Before you begin writing the paper, you should first complete descriptive and contextual analyses. To complete the descriptive analysis, use the relevant outline on BlackBoard. Once you know what the rhetoric is about, you will know how to proceed with the contextual research. For example, if the rhetoric focused on unemployment, then it would make sense to discover the unemployment rate at the time the rhetoric was delivered/published. Other questions you might address during your contextual research include:
What was the rhetor’s background?
Based on your descriptive analysis, who is the target audience? What data is available related to that audience?
oIs there any polling data related to the relevant issues?
oWas the topic controversial?
Was there pending legislation related to the topic?
What other competing arguments existed at the time?
Do the supporting materials pass the tests of evidence discussed in class?
After completing the contextual research, determine what were the rhetor’s barriers and advantages. For example, you may discover the audience distrusted “Washington insiders.” If the rhetor served many years in Washington, this would be a barrier for her/him. In your analysis, you would focus on whether the rhetorical strategies addressed this barrier. In another scenario, you might discover that the target audience places a high value on community service. While researching the rhetor, you discover that he is highly involved in his community. In your analysis, you would consider whether he highlighted this advantage in the rhetoric.
Overview of the Paper
In this paper students will analyze how a text functions within a specific context. This paper has three basic parts:
Introduction (one to two pages)
Grab audience’s attention and orient them to the topic.
Use research to explain the context within which the rhetoric occurred.
Provide a rationale for why the text is important.
State what you believe is the rhetor’s purpose. If the purpose is not clear, it will be helpful to cite relevant text.
Using contextual research, state what you believe were the barriers and advantages.
State your argument and preview the paper.
Body (two to three pages)
This is where you analyze the rhetoric. This should be based on what you discovered during your descriptive analysis. After outlining the rhetoric, determine what are the salient strategies. In this section, feel free to use quotations and vivid descriptions to support your assertions.
Your paragraphs should be written in a deductive manner. That is, you should focus on the concept that you think best describes how the rhetoric was presented. After identifying the concept, the next step is to link the rhetoric to the concept through quotations, paraphrasing, or vivid descriptions. Finally, you need to analyze the significance of the metaphor. Your analysis should consist of a reasonable inference about how the rhetoric worked.
For example: Senator Jenkins used metaphors throughout his speech. The first metaphor he used was related to business. He specifically stated that, “government needs to balance its budget, and make sure that citizens receive a good return on their investment.” Here Jenkins is asking the audience to view government through the lens of business. In this metaphor citizens are consumers, and their taxes are an investment. And as consumers, they expect the taxes they pay to directly benefit them.
Conclusion (one to two pages)
In this section you will evaluate the effectiveness of the rhetoric. The key question is whether the rhetoric maximized advantages and/or conquered barriers. If you believe the rhetoric failed, then what could the rhetor have done differently? In this section you might also include external data about how the rhetoric was received.