it's English paper
315476
requirement305.docxProject #1 Prompt
Your task is to analyze a text, paying special attention to the features that influence a piece of writing the most: the audience, the writer’s orientation, the rhetorical situation, and the genre (COLFV features). Use the sample rhetorical analysis on pages 42-47 as a flexible guide (not a rigid model). The content of your project should differ from the sample because you are analyzing a different text, but the format of your analysis should contrast with the sample as well, due to the nature of this assignment.
PART A : TEXT & SUMMARY
· Select one of the texts available on BlackBoard under Project #1, labeled “Text Options.” Annotate a hard copy of the text.
· Write a SUMMARY: Use one of the texts made available for this assignment on Blackboard. Apply what you have learned about analyzing texts using the COLFV model and write a summary of your findings. Your COLFV summary will include:
· 1: rhetorical information about the text
· 2: a brief description of content
· 3: a brief description of organization
· 4: a brief description of language
· 5: a discussion of the values that might be held by the discourse community of readers and writer.
here is the summary
Analysis of the essay “Concussions and NFL: How the name CTE came about”
Bennet Omalu uses various rhetorical analysis devices to communicate to the audience about the findings that have become controversially discussed by opponents of chronic trauma encephalopathy disorder or CTE. Rhetorical devices are used to appeal to readers of any text through use of logos, ethos, and pathos. Ethos refers to the appeal to ethics of readers, pathos appeal to the emotions, and logos appeals to the logical reasoning of the readers. The essay “Concussions and NF: How the name CTE came about” is able to communicate to the prospective audiences through utilization of rhetorical devices that pass information to readers in an effective way. It is important to note that the text provides information to the football players and stakeholders on the causes of many deaths among football veterans. This paper analyzes how Omalu is able to pass information in an effective by using the appealing techniques (Omalu, 2015, p. 1).
For Omalu, the work of autopsy on the body of Mike Webster who was a former Pittsburgh Steeler center is the basis of a great finding that led to the publication of journals about CTE. Omalu speaks with academic authority of his professional. Through analysis of Mike Webster, Omalu discovered that the disorders that could be related to his death were unavailable. It was a new finding that required proof and credible backing. The experiments on the brain provided evidence that the disease that could have led to the death of the veteran footballer was different from other diseases whose findings had been published. Cooperation with senior neurologists and other professionals of the brain provide a backing that Omalu had found a new disease that required publication. CTE was confirmed on other players who suffered similar disease after years of football. Omalu backs his analysis by consulting with his mentor Dr. Ronald Hamilton whose academic qualifications makes the findings credible. Throughout the writing, Omalu shows the readers that in deed the findings and information provided are credible (2-3).
Omalu organizes the text in a technical way that appeals to readers who are in the field of neurology. Omalu selects his audience by use of technical language that can be understood by people who are professionals in medicine. Systematic organization of the information collected in the experiments carried out provides a good starting point to back his assertion and findings of CTE disease. At the introduction, the author discusses that the disease and findings of autopsy were different from what was known to be main cause of many deaths among players. To this end, there is backing of the information that there was a new disease that had not been discovered (2-4).
Use of technical language is important aspect of the description provided by Omalu. The information appeals to the ethics of the medicine profession. For instance, the statement, “when I examined his brain and requested a battery of tests-histochemical and immunohistochemical stains” shows how Omalu relied on ethical experiments before making his conclusion (3).
Readers would be interested in finding out why Omalu wanted to give the disease a new name. The new name is discussed and analyzed through the continuous assessments. Information provided throughout the essay implies that the author was a professional and was credible to provide information. Omalu appeals to the emotions of the readers by stating that those who were opposing his findings are dehumanizing Webster and other athletes. The way Omalu wrote the text is able to tell the readers about the text and what could be expected in the movie “Concussions” (Omalu, 2015).
· PART B : CONTEXT (Due Friday, Feb. 12th on Blackboard)
· • Use the close reading, summaries, and notes to analyze the text — in particular, examine the effects of the audience, writer’s orientation, rhetorical situation, and genre (COLFV elements) by responding to each of the following questions with 2-5 sentences each. The format of this section should be a numbered set of responses to each question, BUT this does not mean giving short or one-word answers.
·
1.
What is the context of the issues? What do you know about the topic? What issues does the topic raise? Is there a larger debate, discussion, or controversy already going on? What seems to be at stake?
2.Who is the writer? What do you know about the writer’s background, credibility, knowledge of the topic, beliefs, and social allegiances?
3.What is the publication/source? What do you know about its intended readers, reputability, political slant, and the topics it covers?
4.How does the writer define to rhetorical situation and identify the call to write? What is the writer’s orientation toward the issues involved? What is at stake for the writer?
5.Who is the intended audience? Is the writer addressing one group of readers or more than one? Is the writer trying to bring an audience into being (to create a group/ audience)? What kind of relationship is the writer trying to establish with readers? What assumptions about readers does the writer seem to make?
6.How does the writer use language? What is the writer’s tone? What does the writer’s word choice chow about his or her assumptions about readers? Does the writer use specialized terms or slang? Are there memorable figures of speech? Does the writer stereotype?
