Help with assgn due in 48 hours

profilecombs
AssignmentComparativeEssay.docx
Home>Education homework help>Help with assgn due in 48 hours

Assignment: Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Task: Compare the rhetorical strategies used by two speakers and evaluate whose text you think is more appropriate for its audience and more likely to be effective in accomplishing the writer’s persuasive purpose.  Your  analysis essay should support your answer to the following questions: Which text is more likely to have to have successfully accomplished its rhetorical purpose? Which writer’s rhetorical strategies are more appropriate for the rhetorical situation?    

Audience and purpose: Assume that your audience consists of college-educated readers. For this assignment, assume that we are not as familiar with the texts and situation surrounding this debate as you are. Your purpose is to convince us as to which text is better suited to its rhetorical situation and thus is more likely to accomplish its rhetorical purpose.  

Texts: Use the following texts to complete your analysis: 

Source 1:  “Why AI is our ultimate test and greatest invitation” by Tristan HarrisLinks to an external site.

https://www.ted.com/talks/tristan_harris_why_ai_is_our_ultimate_test_and_greatest_invitation

Source 2:  “The catastrophic risks of AI — and a safer path” by Yoshua BengioLinks to an external site.

  https://www.ted.com/talks/yoshua_bengio_the_catastrophic_risks_of_ai_and_a_safer_path

Process

You have taken two steps towards this Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Essay already in Weeks 3 and 4 when you completed two Rhetorical Analysis Situation Reports, one on each of your assigned sources. Using these reports, you will consider all you know about each source to determine which rhetor is more effective. 

Decide which text you believe is more appropriate for the rhetorical situation and more likely to be effective in accomplishing its rhetorical purpose. Your answer will form the basis for your thesis, which might follow a model such as the following:  

· “While both Author X and Author Y appropriately appeal to their respective audiences’ emotions, Author Y is more likely than Author X to succeed in accomplishing the goal of changing their audience’s mind about A because the writer presents herself as someone the intended readers will more readily identify with and offers evidence that her readers will find more compelling.” 

Draft your paper, supporting your thesis by drawing on details from both rhetorical situation reports you have written thus far to help back up your claim about which text is more appropriate for its rhetorical situation and which writer is more likely to be effective in accomplishing his or her rhetorical purpose for their audience. 

 

Structure 

Your essay should follow an eight-paragraph essay format, adhering to this structure: 

Paragraph 1: Introduction & Thesis  

Paragraph 2: Discussion of Source 1 Ethos 

Paragraph 3: Discussion of Source 2 Ethos 

Paragraph 4: Discussion of Source 1 Logos 

Paragraph 5: Discussion of Source 2 Logos 

Paragraph 6: Discussion of Source 1 Pathos 

Paragraph 7: Discussion of Source 2 Pathos 

Paragraph 8: Conclusion/Synthesis 

Be sure to review the Week 5 lecture and use Lesson 2 of 5 on “Compiling Your Draft” to walk you through the creation of each of these paragraphs and what should be included in each. Remember that you also have access to the  Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Example Essay  Download Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Example Essayfor reference while writing. 

 

Tips  

Keep the following tips in mind as your draft your essay.  

· Consult the lectures and resources inside of the course as you write. Remember that you have access to the Rhetorical Analysis Supplements in Week 2’s materials. 

· Remember that your purpose is to analyze these two texts and compare them. You are not agreeing or disagreeing with the message either text presents! 

· Identify and refer to the rhetorical situations of the texts and the writers’ rhetorical purpose(s). Don’t just say that the writer uses ethos, logos, and/or pathos strategies, since this is already assumed; instead, consider the use of these strategies in light of how appropriate they are in helping the writer accomplish the rhetorical purpose in that particular situation. 

 

Requirements 

· Rough Draft Due: Week 5 

· Final Draft Due: Week 6 

· Length: 800 – 1000 words (excluding Title and References page) 

· APA Formatting 

 

Rubric

Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Essay Rubric

Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Essay Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 1: Introduction & Thesis

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentIntroduction clearly sets up both texts, authors, audiences, and context. Thesis is precise, arguable, and clearly states which text is more rhetorically effective and why.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientIntroduction provides sufficient context and a clear thesis; some elements of rhetorical situation could be clearer.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryIntroduction is vague or missing context. Thesis is present but general or unclear.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingIntroduction lacks clarity or context. Thesis is missing, confusing, or fails to answer the core question.

2 to >0 ptsMissingIntroduction and thesis missing.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 2: Source1 - Ethos

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentTopic sentence clearly identifies the strength/weakness of Source 1’s ethos. Evidence is well-chosen, explained, and tied to audience.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientAdequate discussion; evidence is relevant but may lack depth or full connection to audience and/or topic sentence may be sufficient but slightly unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySurface-level analysis; evidence may be mentioned without clear explanation or audience connection; topic sentence may be unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal analysis or summary only; weak or missing connection to audience; topic sentence may be irrelevant or unclear.

2 to >0 ptsMissingMissing discussion of Source 1 ethos.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 3: Source 2 - Ethos

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentTopic sentence clearly identifies the strength/weakness of Source 2’s ethos. Evidence is well-chosen, explained, and tied to audience.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientAdequate discussion; evidence is relevant but may lack depth or full connection to audience and/or topic sentence may be sufficient but slightly unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySurface-level analysis; evidence may be mentioned without clear explanation or audience connection; topic sentence may be unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal analysis or summary only; weak or missing connection to audience; topic sentence may be irrelevant or unclear.

2 to >0 ptsMissingMissing discussion of Source 2 ethos.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 4: Source 1 - Logos

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentTopic sentence clearly identifies the strength/weakness of Source 1’s logos. Evidence is well-chosen, explained, and tied to audience.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientAdequate discussion; evidence is relevant but may lack depth or full connection to audience and/or topic sentence may be sufficient but slightly unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySurface-level analysis; evidence may be mentioned without clear explanation or audience connection; topic sentence may be unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal analysis or summary only; weak or missing connection to audience; topic sentence may be irrelevant or unclear.

2 to >0 ptsMissingMissing discussion of Source 1 logos.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 5: Source 2 - Logos

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentTopic sentence clearly identifies the strength/weakness of Source 2’s logos. Evidence is well-chosen, explained, and tied to audience.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientAdequate discussion; evidence is relevant but may lack depth or full connection to audience and/or topic sentence may be sufficient but slightly unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySurface-level analysis; evidence may be mentioned without clear explanation or audience connection; topic sentence may be unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal analysis or summary only; weak or missing connection to audience; topic sentence may be irrelevant or unclear.

2 to >0 ptsMissingMissing discussion of Source 2 logos.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 6: Source 1 - Pathos

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentTopic sentence clearly identifies the strength/weakness of Source 1’s pathos. Evidence is well-chosen, explained, and tied to audience.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientAdequate discussion; evidence is relevant but may lack depth or full connection to audience and/or topic sentence may be sufficient but slightly unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySurface-level analysis; evidence may be mentioned without clear explanation or audience connection; topic sentence may be unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal analysis or summary only; weak or missing connection to audience; topic sentence may be irrelevant or unclear.

2 to >0 ptsMissingMissing discussion of Source 1 pathos.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 7: Source 2 - Pathos

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentTopic sentence clearly identifies the strength/weakness of Source 2’s pathos. Evidence is well-chosen, explained, and tied to audience.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientAdequate discussion; evidence is relevant but may lack depth or full connection to audience and/or topic sentence may be sufficient but slightly unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactorySurface-level analysis; evidence may be mentioned without clear explanation or audience connection; topic sentence may be unclear or does not summarize the main argument of the paragraph fully.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal analysis or summary only; weak or missing connection to audience; topic sentence may be irrelevant or unclear.

2 to >0 ptsMissingMissing discussion of Source 2 pathos.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeParagraph 8: Conclusion & Synthesis

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentIntegrates insights from all paragraphs; emphasizes broader significance of comparison. Reframes thesis insightfully; leaves reader with a strong sense of closure.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientSummarizes argument and restates thesis; some synthesis evident but may be general.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryConclusion is vague, repetitive, or only partially summarizes essay.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingLacks synthesis or meaningful conclusion; restatement of thesis unclear.

2 to >0 ptsMissingMissing conclusion/synthesis.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Evidence & Rhetorical Vocabulary

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentEvidence from both texts is integrated seamlessly; rhetorical terms (ethos, pathos, logos, audience, purpose) are used accurately and insightfully.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientEvidence is relevant, and terms are mostly used correctly though explanation may lack some depth.

6 to >4.0 ptsSatisfactoryInconsistent or weak connection between evidence and analysis; rhetorical terms may be partially misused or unclear.

4 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingLittle evidence used and/or poor understanding or misapplication of rhetorical terms.

2 to >0 ptsMissingNo evidence or demonstrated understanding of rhetorical terms.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPA Format

5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentSources are cited correctly in the document and on the reference page; formatting is correct.

4 to >3.0 ptsProficientSources cited correctly with minor errors; formatting mostly correct.

3 to >2.0 ptsSatisfactorySources are cited, but there are several errors in the reference and/or paper format.

2 to >1.0 ptsDevelopingSources are not cited, or sources are cited with major errors and/or inconsistencies in format.

1 to >0 ptsMissingNo sources cited; format incorrect.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting Fluency

5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentSkillful writing fluency, exhibits few or no mechanical errors.

4 to >3.0 ptsProficientReasonable writing fluency, exhibits few mechanical errors.

3 to >2.0 ptsSatisfactoryWriting fluency exhibits several mechanical errors.

2 to >1.0 ptsDevelopingMinimal writing fluency, exhibits numerous mechanical errors.

1 to >0 ptsMissingWriting is not fluent; unreadable.

5 pts

Total Points: 100