Based off of the reading, this essay will be very similar to that which I had been writing in high school. The composition of a rhetorical essay seems to be what AP style writing is based off of. The main focus is the analysis first and foremost. My opinion might pop up every once and a while, but I am not making an argument. This was a heavily stressed point in the reading. I am looking forward to writing a paragraphs that cover one main issue and each have a substantial conclusion to them. Writing shorter paragraphs in a blog is nearly impossible for me, after years of being trained to write a fully developed idea confined to one paragraph. I am much more accustomed to writing a defined outline for a defined introduction, individuals paragraphs, and a conclusion. I often build an essay continually presenting the most important points towards the end. Of course this means there is often some rambling in the middle confined by a much more specific introduction and conclusion. With this rambling in mind, I wrote an outline that limited my paragraphs to very specific topics. Although this may result in a much slower writing process, the rough draft may be a little more focused.
 |
| Vitamin "sprout" accessed via Pixabay Uploaded June 2015 CC0 Public Domain |
This is the one location for the background and context of the issue. I will include the information about exactly what the pope has released (encyclical and his speeches), his stance on the environment, and the public reaction. The context of his speech is important for the audience to know and understand in order to realize the rhetorical importance of the speech itself, first and foremost. I will then address the successful rhetorical strategies used by Turrentine, as his efforts of persuasion from his own article are what I will be discussing in the rest of the essay.
Thesis:
This will present to the audience what main rhetorical strategies will be addressed in the following essay. So it must have a balance of concise information that simply gets these main points across. The thesis below is a possible option, but it is not quite where I would like it to be.
Jeff Turrentine, despite having a bias as a self-proclaimed environmental activist, writes a factually based credible article with a witty voice that remains convincing and relatable to the audience. The rhetorical goal of the article is to persuade the audience of how great the potential of the Pope becoming the catalyst environmental science is to inspire change in the US population and government. He does so by creating logical arguments about US culture the reasons for the split between Conservatives and Liberals, and appealing directly to the moral and ethical qualms of the audience.
Body Paragraphs:
I - Audience + Pathos
Turrentine's article is an analysis of the possible public reaction to the speech and the reasons for their reaction.
- Who is the audience?
- Why does this matter?
- Identify Turrentine's appeals to the audience, especially using humor.
- Identify the ethical and moral appeals that Turrentine presents to this particular audience.
II - Culture (US specific)
Turrentine addresses the cultural roadblocks that previously were a hindrance to recognition of climate change, but that now may benefit the confusion created by the Pope's argument.
- What was the culture surrounding the environment and climate change?
- How does this culture conflict with the Pope's appeal?
- Identify how Turrentine addresses this cultural conflict (using quotations).
- Identify the use of logos.
III - Logos + Pathos
Turrentine successfully uses the combination of a slightly informal humorous tone paired with a plethora of factual information, quotations, and credible sources.
- ((Logos) How was the article credible/factually based and why does it benefit his persuasion?
- Identify 2-3 specific mentions/quotations of credible sources and how he uses them effectively.
- (Pathos) Why is his use of informality and humor effective, especially when paired with the elements of logos?
- Identify 1-2 specific mentions/quotations of this type of word choice.
Conclusion:
This will be a wrap-up of exactly how Turrentine uses of rhetorical strategies were successful in amplifying his level of persuasion. It will include an analysis of the main claim of the article that the Pope's speech will cause confusion and turmoil in the conservative and religious community and my own analysis of the impact of the rhetoric of this article and the Pope on environmental science.
REFLECTION:
After reading Chelsea and Sam's blogs I found the outline to be a much more diverse method of planning than I had previously thought. I use an outline to block out the main focus of the paragraphs, questions I need to address, and identifying several specific ideas I need to address. Chelsea follows a similar format, but instead of using questions, she writes out full sentences that could easily be incorporated into the actual essay. She uses the outline to eliminate rambling and really block out exactly what she wants to say in each paragraph. Sam used the outline to show herself where she wanted to go with each paragraph. The set-up of the outline was great, but I found the body paragraph stuff to be a little too minimal. I find that I had to write out what points I wanted to use from the article in my analysis, in order to avoid rambling and focus in on the main idea of the paragraph.
I see that we had very different approaches to our outlines, and I do like yours a lot more. Writing a short little blurb at the beginning of each different section really helps to identify what you wish to discuss in that paragraph. I really like how you are going to take a bit of the first paragraph after the introduction to clarify who Turrentine's audience is. It will really help the hypothetical freshmen that will be reading this. Everything seems to be in good shape. And although it probably doesn't matter now, I think adding the actual quotes in the outline is super helpful.
ReplyDelete