Guided Reflection: Rhetorical Analysis

Today’s exercise is designed to help you dissect and evaluate

your chosen op-eds in preparation for essay 4

Choose one of your two op-eds to focus on for this exercise

Remember: the purpose of rhetorical analysis is to

evaluate how effective an author’s argument is by paying

attention to how the author makes the argument.

What are the objectives of the op-ed?

List 1-2 objectives, or goals, of the text

What are the objectives of the op-ed?

How do you know these are the objectives?

List 2 quotes from the essay

What larger conversation and/or problem does the op-ed

respond to?In 1 or 2 sentences, synthesize the debate.

Where is the writer coming from?

List what you know about the author and where he or she stands on the issue at hand.

How does the author use their background to establish authority?

What is the author’s main claim?

Without looking at the op-ed, paraphrase the author’s central claim.

What support does the author offer for the claim?

Note the evidence the author provides, including attention to what type of rhetorical appeal the evidence relies upon

(ethos, pathos, logos)

What is the author’s tone?

What specific language does the author use that makes you read their tone as such?

How does that tone affect you, the reader?

What work, if any, is the author’s tone doing to advance the author’s argument? Or does the tone get in the way of

the author’s ability to be persuasive? Explain your reasoning!

What stylistic choices and/or devices does the author rely

on?

Descriptive language? Graphic language? Metaphor? Repetition of words or phrases? Point to specific

moments, word choices, and/or phrases.

Is the argument effective?

Bearing all the work you just did in mind, write a trial thesis.

Asking a productive and provocative research question

What makes a productive research question?

What makes a productive research question?

● It can’t simply be answered yes, no, or with a statement of fact. ● The focus is narrow enough for a 7 page paper; that is, the question shouldn’t be so

broad and open-ended that answering it would require a very long paper ● Answering the question prompts you to ask and answer more questions

With your group, generate as many questions as you can about your given object.

With your group, add at least 3 questions to the list for your new object.

With your group, choose one question from the list for this last object and revise it into a research question.

Proposing Future Research

Introduction Orient your reader to your topic. Your rhetorical analyses looked closely at two arguments; now is your chance to synthesize the conversation for your reader. Rather than concluding with a thesis statement, your introduction should build toward (and clearly state) your guiding research question.

Body In any order, address the following questions: ● How did your chosen op-eds lead you to your current research

question? What questions do they raise and/or leave unanswered? How does your project differ from the arguments of the op-eds?

● Who cares about this topic? Explain the debate you’re joining, what the stakes are, and why your reader should care.

● What, if any, research have you done thus far, and what is your research plan going forward? Where do you think you’ll need to look to gain more information about your topic?

Conclusion Describe how you might narrow your topic further and list any worthwhile or potentially interesting arguments about the topic.

NB: You’re proposing research you haven’t done yet, not presenting a thesis about a topic you’ve already looked into. For this reason, it’s important to be open to various lines of reasoning and thought about your topic. Rather than providing answers, use this conclusion as a space to test out potential lines of argument.

The final part of this assignment is to write a two-page proposal for future research. This proposal is the starting point for Essay 5, the researched argument paper, so think carefully about your topic. Rather than advancing an argument, your proposal should focus on a research question. I’d like your research proposal to abide by the following structure:

Introduction: “Their Pledges Die, So Should Fraternities” by Frank Bruni and “The Future of Frats” by Kiley Roache ● Orient the reader: Bruni and Roache both respond to the question:

How can we reform fraternities so that they are no longer hotbeds of sexual, physical, and psychological violence?

● Present the sides of the debate: Bruni concludes that fraternities are incapable of reform and therefore should be removed from university life before Greek life takes any more young lives. Roache, by contrast, believes that Greek life can change, and that making Greek life coed can help fraternities and sororities achieve their professed investment in community and friendship.

● Narrow: Bruni emphasizes the connection between alcohol consumption and rising death tolls in fraternities. Roache notes that Greek life disenfranchises--indeed, endangers--women because frat brothers control parties and alcohol distribution.

● Research question: How would allowing sororities to host parties and dispense alcohol affect Greek life (and its current dangers)? Is that a feasible solution? Why or why not?

Orient your reader to your topic. Your rhetorical analyses looked closely at two arguments; now is your chance to synthesize the conversation for your reader. Rather than concluding with a thesis statement, your introduction should build toward (and clearly state) your guiding research question.

Body Paragraph: How did your chosen op-eds lead you to your current research question? ● Bruni’s essay paints a bleak picture of Greek life because of the emphasis it places on

the link between Greek life and untimely, tragic deaths of young men. Yet, even his essay admits that doing away with Greek life entirely is probably not feasible.

● If it’s not feasible to do away with Greek life, then what can we do about it? ● Roache’s essay takes up this issue of reform; she offers solutions to the problem at

hand. ● But, I wondered whether those solutions would even work. And if they will work,

why haven’t they happened?● My question focuses on one possible solution presented within Roache’s essay

(giving sororities control over parties and alcohol) and asks how that change would actually affect Greek life.

Body Paragraph: Who cares about this topic?

● College students, especially college students on campuses with active Greek life. (Probably all college students or people in their late teens / early twenties because they may visit friends or have siblings at other universities.)

● Parents of students attending colleges with Greek life ● College presidents, deans, administrators, professors, and staff members ● Law enforcement (issues around underage drinking as well as all the issues that stem

from binge drinking)

Body Paragraph: What, if any, research have you done thus far, and what is your research plan going forward?● Thus far, I have read 3 op-eds (Bruni and Roache) as well as an op-ed in the Tufts

Observer about frats on Tufts’s campus. ● I plan to watch the documentary The Hunting Ground ● I might look at Peggy Orenstein’s work because she writes about masculinity, young

men, and sexual ethics. I think this could be helpful for thinking about drinking culture on frats and college campuses

● I also plan to look at studies on fraternities, sororities, and alcohol consumption

Conclusion● On the one hand, it seems like affording sororities more control

would lead to positive change--sorority sisters would know what is in their drinks, they wouldn’t have to pass male gatekeepers to enter parties, they could shape party culture to be what they want it to be.

● On the other hand, I wonder if this change is a band-aid rather than a solution. That is, does this change do enough to address the issues around binge drinking and attendant violent behaviors?

● I think I am going to need to think more about what I mean when I ask about allowing sororities to serve and control alcohol being a “feasible solution?” What does “feasible” mean? If it’s such a great solution, why hasn’t it happened already?

● It might make sense to narrow my discussion to whether or not giving sororities control of alcohol consumption will actually help mitigate the sexual violence inflicted upon women in Greek life settings. Answering this might require me to look into research on the ties between sexual violence and alcohol consumption on college campuses.

Describe how you might narrow your topic further and list any worthwhile or potentially interesting arguments about the topic.

Your turn. Jot down some notes for your introduction.

Orient your reader to your topic. Your rhetorical analyses looked closely at two arguments; now is your chance to synthesize the conversation for your reader. Rather than concluding with a thesis statement, your introduction should build toward (and clearly state) your guiding research question.

Body Paragraphs

In any order, address the following questions: ● How did your chosen op-eds lead you to your current research question?

What questions do they raise and/or leave unanswered? How does your project differ from the arguments of the op-eds?

● Who cares about this topic? Explain the debate you’re joining, what the stakes are, and why your reader should care.

● What, if any, research have you done thus far, and what is your research plan going forward? Where do you think you’ll need to look to gain more information about your topic?

Conclusion

Describe how you might narrow your topic further and list any worthwhile or potentially interesting arguments about the topic.

NB: You’re proposing research you haven’t done yet, not presenting a thesis about a topic you’ve already looked into. For this reason, it’s important to be open to various lines of reasoning and thought about your topic. Rather than providing answers, use this conclusion as a space to test out potential lines of argument.