help with assgn due in 48 hours

profilecombs
Assignmentweek4.docx
Home>Education homework help>help with assgn due in 48 hours

Assignment: Rhetorical Situation Analysis Report 2

Overview

Just as you completed a report on one piece of rhetoric last week, we will do the same report for an additional source this week before we begin comparing the two sources. Completing this rhetorical situation analysis report will help you continue to understand the rhetorical situation for which a text was composed, identify the writer’s intended audience and rhetorical purpose, and consider how effective his or her strategies are for accomplishing that purpose. Completing this report will help you complete your Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Essay due in Week 6. 

 

Text

Yoshua Bengio on “The catastrophic risks of AI — and a safer path” 

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe9QSCF-d88

Note:   Ted Talks have accessibility options that include a transcript of the talk as well as captions that can be turned on to play during the speaker’s presentation. The transcript may be helpful when referencing the talk while completing this assignment for quicker access.

 

Task

Listen to the text assigned for this report and then answer the questions below. Write your responses in the form of short answers to each question. You will later use those responses to develop your Comparative Rhetorical Analysis Essay.  

1. When and where did this text originally appear? 

2. Is there a context for this text’s publication? What was going on in the world at the time? What event, situation, or argument is the writer responding to? (Hint: Think about both the immediate context (like the live audience and event setting) and the broader, ongoing conversations that might have influenced the speaker. Remember, TED Talks are not just for those present but for an online global audience over time. This one may take some basic research!) 

3. How would you describe the discourse community in which this text is operating? Who is part of the discourse community, what values are important to them, what do members of this discourse community consider credible evidence?  (Hint: Consider the layered audience here: the people physically present, the speaker’s awareness of a digital audience, and the wider community of viewers and thinkers who will engage with this talk afterward. How might these different groups shape what counts as “credible” or valuable?) 

4. Who is the writer's intended audience, and what textual clues help you name that audience? Remember that the rhetorical audience is always more specific than anyone who reads the text.  

5. What is the writer’s message, the key point(s) he or she is trying to convey? What is the writer trying to say? 

6. What is the writer's rhetorical purpose? What does the writer want the audience to feel, know, believe, or do as a result of reading this text? 

7. What rhetorical appeals does the writer use to accomplish his or her rhetorical purpose?

· Describe the writer's constructed ethos. How effectively does the writer construct himself or herself as credible, trustworthy, and knowledgeable? 

· Describe the writer’s appeals to logos. What types of reasoning does the author present or use? To what values, beliefs, and assumptions does the writer appeal, and how likely is the intended audience to be persuaded by appeals to those values, beliefs, and assumptions? 

· Describe the writer’s appeals to pathos. How effectively does the writer elicit an emotional response from the intended audience, and how effectively will those appeals to pathos help achieve the writer’s rhetorical purpose?

8. How appropriate do you think the text is for its rhetorical situation? How likely will the text achieve its rhetorical purpose?  

Rubric

Rhetorical Situation Analysis Report 2 Rubric

Rhetorical Situation Analysis Report 2 Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContext and Publication (Q1 & Q2)

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentClearly identifies when and where the text was published with precise, accurate detail. Explains the broader context of the publication (historical, political, social, or cultural) with insight.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientAccurately states when and where the text appeared. Offers some contextual background, though explanation may be more general or surface-level.

6 to >4.0 ptsDevelopingBasic or vague identification of the publication details or context is unclear, overly broad, or lacks accuracy.

4 to >0 ptsMissingImportant elements missing and/or vague.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscourse Community & Audience (Q3 & Q4)

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentClearly and insightfully defines the discourse community, including its values, beliefs, and standards of evidence. Identifies a specific rhetorical audience with strong textual support and understanding of how the writer shapes the text for that group.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientDescribes the discourse community with reasonable accuracy, though with less depth or nuance. Audience is identified and supported with some textual clues, but analysis may lack specificity.

6 to >4.0 ptsDevelopingGeneral or unclear description of the discourse community. Audience may be too broad or incorrectly identified, with little or no textual evidence to support the claim.

4 to >0 ptsMissingImportant elements missing and/or vague.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMessage & Purpose (Q5 & Q6)

10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentAccurately articulates the writer’s key message and analyzes the rhetorical purpose in clear, specific terms. Demonstrates a strong understanding of what the writer wants the audience to think, feel, or do as a result of the text.

8 to >6.0 ptsProficientIdentifies the central message and purpose with general accuracy. May be slightly vague or lack complete development, but the main ideas are clear and correct.

6 to >4.0 ptsDevelopingMessage and purpose are partially addressed but may be overly general, repetitive, or lack clarity. Little insight into how purpose connects with audience or context.

4 to >0 ptsMissingImportant elements missing and/or vague.

10 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRhetorical Appeals (Q7, including 7a, 7b, 7c)

15 to >12.0 ptsExcellentThorough, well-organized analysis of ethos, logos, and pathos. Offers clear textual evidence and insightful evaluation of how each appeal contributes to the writer’s credibility, reasoning, and emotional impact. Demonstrates a deep understanding of rhetorical strategy.

12 to >9.0 ptsProficientAddresses all three appeals with reasonable explanation and examples. Analysis is mostly accurate and connected to rhetorical purpose.

9 to >6.0 ptsDevelopingAttempts to discuss the appeals but with minimal detail or weak textual support. May confuse the appeals or overlook how they relate to the audience and message.

6 to >0 ptsMissingImportant elements missing and/or vague.

15 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAppropriateness & Effectiveness

5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentOffers a clear and thoughtful judgment of how well the text fits its rhetorical situation and how likely it is to achieve its intended purpose. Uses specific reasoning to support the evaluation.

4 to >3.0 ptsProficientGives a plausible evaluation of the text’s effectiveness, though the explanation may be more general or lack specific support.

3 to >2.0 ptsDevelopingEvaluation is vague, overly brief, or not clearly connected to the rhetorical situation or purpose.

2 to >0 ptsMissingImportant elements missing and/or vague.

5 pts

Total Points: 50