Link to today's presentation: Lesson 5.
To review today's class, we discussed how WHAT someone is arguing may not be nearly as important as HOW they're arguing it. We took last week's concepts/questions about how to come at a text with a certain amount of skepticism, to look more deeply at how an author presents his/her argument, and applied them to Gawande's "A Lifesaving Checklist."
SO, with that practice in mind, you're moving forward to actually writing your rhetorical analysis of either Dillon's, Cangialosi's, or Pipher's article. Also, in both classes, almost no one chose to opt for Pipher's article--hint: some of you might find it helpful to analyze hers instead. Just because rhetorical choices might be a bit more difficult to label does not mean that it will be hard to analyze. Also, in regard to Dillon's article, just because something is straightforward/short doesn't mean it will be easy to write about. Keep that in mind as you move forward.
Homework:
- Reading
- St. Martin's: Chs. 8 and 13
- FYW: Ch. 6 (pgs. 119-152)
- For this week, you do not have a BA, BUT you do have a Writing Reflection assignment that is due TO ME (not through RaiderWriter) in class next week.
Writing Reflection Assignment:
Purpose: Communicating to me any areas of confusion about the concepts we work with in this class. Do you struggle with summary/paraphrase? Audience/purpose? Rhetorical choices? Let me know.
Write a brief reflection--Two paragraphs, 300-400 words. Discuss:
(1) Which concepts do you have a firm grasp of?
(2) Which concepts are you struggling with?
Bring this as a HARD COPY next week to turn in to me (typed is preferred).
That should be it! Have a good week.
No comments:
Post a Comment