Group items tagged

It kind of feels as if the paper ends rather abruptly. A conclusion that sort of sums the idea of the paper up might help buffer that. Also, there are a lot of grammatical errors throughout this paper that need to be gone back over- mainly missing commas here and there, and couple phrases that don't seem like the right words. Also, I didn't see any citations in the paper. You definitely need to go back through and add them into your paper.

any time you have a direct quote, you always need a comma before the quote starts, and then before the quote ends, unless it's the end of a sentence (in which case it needs the proper punctuation). words, "Senator Obama doesn't understand,"

You might want to double check the spelling. I'm pretty sure it's "Barack"

Yes, Dena is correct.

It almost feels as if this might need to be a new paragraph. It goes from discussing his verbal rhetoric to his visual rhetoric, so maybe you might want to add more about his spoken rhetoric than on his visual rhetoric before you jump into that. Or you might want to add more about Obama's verbal rhetoric and that might add some balance.

*Barack Obama's

This is a pretty long sentence. You could break the run on up into two sentences like this- "John McCain, on the other hand, did not have a solution. He just kept speaking about Barack Obama and what he does not understand or on how he wants to raise taxes, without explaining Obama's good reasons behind it." Something along those lines would probably make it flow a little better.

I'm not sure if I understand how his gesture is considered to be ethos. Maybe you could go further into explaining this.

Again, I think you should go further into explaining how this is ethos.

This is a good example.

You need to have a works cited and an annotated bibliography.

Okay, so for some reason, it's not showing my floating sticky notes of my three topics, so I'm going to put them in here. Assignment Parameters- I think you have a start to your main idea but didn't go on further with it. Like Dena said, it seems like your thesis is that "right now this country needs a collectivist mindset." You didn't go on to explain how Obama has a colectivist mindset. Also, this statement is a bit biased. I know that it is extremely hard to keep your opinion out of a paper like this, but you could try not to make it so harsh. You may be able to say, "Unlike McCain, Barack Obama has a more collectivist mindset." Your purpose is somewhat clear, but it seems to jump around a bit at times. Organization- I think this is the biggest thing you need to work on. I see part of an introduction in the paper, but not an official one separate from the rest of the paper. You could use "Upon completeing..." to "some ways" as your introduction and maybe add a little background of what rhetoric is or something along those lines. I also didn't see much of a closing in the paper, so maybe you could sum up the main ideas of your paper into a short closing to make it more organized.

Conventions-I noticed a few puncuation, spelling, and grammatical errors, so I would suggest just going back through and re-reading your paper to catch those particular errors. You need to use MLA format in the paper, including your header with your name. You also need to add in text citations.

This sentence kind of confuses me. It's how you start I think that is confusing, saying his logo represents.....try to reword it.

These sentences need to be conbined or changed they don't flow well together.

Right, which means that having a keen awareness of the audience to whom you are writing or speaking is of paramount importance. The concept of "audience" will be an important one this semester. I will often ask you to cater your writings to their intended audiences. And the reality is, even though you may not think about it, in most cases you do this automatically. For instance, in this discussion forum, you are probably writing in a style that you feel is appropriate for an audience of mostly freshmen college students.

Advertising is LOADED with rhetoric, and it's usually not all that subtle. Have you ever seen an Axe bodywash commercial? How about Cialis? In politics, generally rhetoric can be a bit more tricky. Fortunately, we're in prime season for political rhetoric and we will have a project that focuses on how the candidates each approach "being rhetorical."

Two thumbs-up for being concise AND covering a lot of ground. Also, good work digging up a good academic resource from RPI. I have used that exact source before in previous classes and may very well use it again this semester.

This is crucial, and I am pleased that you raised this point. We are ALWAYS acting rhetorically, even when we aren't writing college papers or giving oral presentations.

This should be "connected," not "connect."

I believe that there should be a comma in between the word "said" and "All" before your quote. Also, Foner's name at the end of the quote should be capitalized.

I think this is a very good point. It seems like you really took a lot of time to analyze the works. Good job!

The word "is" should be "if."

I like the way this was said. It's very true!

I like your introduction. It's good that you explained what rhetoric was and how it's used because when writing pubilcly, all readers may not know exactly what you're talking about.

I like that you used the word "tackles" instead of some other not-so-exciting verbs.

Conventions-I didn't mean to pick on your grammer and puncuation, but that was all I could really pick on! The rest of your paper, I thought, was very good. Most of the stuff I could critique involved small grammatical errors, (which everyone makes), especially on papers.

Oh, also, in the Conventions area, your references were correct. You used the correct format and used in-text citations, so there is definitely no plagiarism is present.

Assignment Parameters-I thought you did a VERY good job with keeping on topic. You explained everything that you needed to explain to the reader including if the author's credentials effected their work, what rhetoric they used, etc. It was easy to understand exactly what you were saying.

This is a very good analysis.

Style-You chose good words to use, making the paper not boring. You switched some of the verbs and descriptions you used, which is very important, especially in a long paper. Your sentences varied with construction, which is also a good thing. You kept your opinion out of the paper and kept the point of view as being non-biased.

Overall I thought your paper was very good. I can tell you really took time to analyze the works, figure out what the author was attempting to say, and answer all the questions that were assigned.

It won't let me highlight another section that was already highlighted, but I really liked that you used "tugging heartstrings" to describe the use of pathos.

This is a good way to look at rhetoric. It gives me a new perspective on it.

I think this is one of the best explanations of rhetoric i have seen so far.

Using rhetoric to persuade each other is an excellent idea because it helps make an answer to a question more objective and it reduces any biases.

I never thought of rhetoric being used by animals but now that is explained to me, I guess I could see where it is possible!

I would have never thought about animals using rhetoric. I found it very interesting that they would use it in such a simple way. They convey what they need throught their sounds and actions.

Wow, i never thought of an animal using rhetoric to make sense. My dog will get his leashe when he has to go out or when hes hungry he will put his head on my leg while i am sitting down. Also he eats around the same time everyday and he will start following me around and pacing back and forth till i get him his food.

My dog does many of the same things. So really, rhetoric is communication. If we did not have a need to express different ideas we would not need language.

When I read the line above that states "rhetoric is manifext in all animal life..." I thought that sounded ridiculous. But by reading this line, I now understand what they are talking about and, in fact, it seems very true.

Thinking about this comment, I reflect back to when I speak to my friends and pretty much anyone and I realize that in some way or another I am always trying to persuade them of something. Even when I don't realize it!

Yes. And I'd like you to carry this idea to the papers you write for this class. You'll want to pay careful attention to whom the intended audience is, and then make your own rhetorical writing decisions based on what you know about that audience's expectations.

This is so true! If you are trying to persuade someone to be on your team, but they are already on your team, then why are you trying to persaude them?

This statement solidifies the importance of the audience when it comes to rhetoric. You could have the best argument in the world, but without the right audience it could be meaningless.

I never knew this. Interesting fact!

I had no idea. Must be tough!

you don't really think of rhetoric as being any different from any other language or culture. I guess it's all relative.

I couldn't imagine going to study in China and having to write like that. Hats off to the students over here.

This is an awesome paragraph and really helps to describe what its like being immersed in something you don't know and how we still use what we learn after we are not involved in it anymore!

These two paragraphs help me with understanding alot about rhetoric and how to use it!

This entire section of the work makes it more clear how everyone uses rhetoric. When I think of rhetoric, I just think of advertisers and authors who use it to persuade their audiences, but I really didn't realize how much we use rhetoric until you see an example like the dog and cat example in the sixth paragraph.

It's kind of exhausting when we think about all the rhetoric we see on a daily basis. Especially in advertisiing!!!

This is an excellent title for a section because, while most of us do not realize it, we all do practice rhetoric on a daily basis. Because its such a broad topic, people dont realize how often it is used.

I like this metaphor. It makes the story a little bit more interesting. I don't feel like I'm just reading something out of a textbook when I read this. It makes me want to read further to understand exactly what they are trying to say.

I agree with Angela about liking this metaphor. So many people think that rhetoric is a "trick..meant to decieve" but really they probably use it all the time without even noticing.

Yeah i really like this metaphor also, and i agree with the second comment i dont think alot of people realize how often they use it.

I think this comment is very accurate. Sure, people may not realize how often they use this technique, but when in use, rhetoric helps to steer the listeners opinions in the speakers direction.

I really like the way this was put-it makes me think further into what he means.

I love this. It's such a huge statement on the basis of the world, and in philosophy. Talking about energy and the way it comes through people is another subject altogether.

I like the way that he put this-it really makes me tihnk further into what he's saying.

It would be nice if that could always work and we could avoid wars and other conflicts!

Yeah i agree, wouldn't it be nice to bring some troops home or had a couple of wars and such avoided?

Wow. If we could work stuff out by just using words, wouldn't the world be quite a different place!! There's only one requirement though, everyone would have to be educated and intelligent. So until then, if we're gonna be dumb we gotta be tough.

I wish the world would work like this. I feel that people today are so concerned with being "right" that they forget to try look at all of the angles my self included. Many of are just so stubburn that we will never be able to think this way.

I think this is very true because we use rhetoric in papers we right in school to convince the readers of what we are discussing. Faculty uses rhetoric to persuade their colleagues and students almost every day.

I think at some point everyone uses rhetoric probably once a day if not once a week to try and get something across.

Again, I have to agree with this statement. As college students, we use rhetoric everyday to try and prove ourselves. More specifically, logos is used almost everyday at the university level.

I liked this paragraph because I think it is very true, when we practice rhetoric we are making a decision about what we want to convince our audience of and how to do it. At the same time the audience makes the desision of how to take the information and accept it or not. This is really evident in a debate, because you as the speaker make the decision of how to convince your audience and they in return decide how they will respond to it.

Hitler was indeed a truly evil person with a hidden agenda who exterminated over 6 million people. Unfortuantely, as many people realized he was a very skilled public speaker. He was popular for a reason. He was extremely good at persuasion and making people think what he was accomplishing was good for the nation as a whole. This is where the danger lies. One always has to think critically and see beyond the rhetoric.

I agree with Cybil. Rhetoric is, as Hitler has proven, a powerful form of persuasion. We must always remember, however, that it is just that--a method of persuasion.

A mind-set that many people should change. It's never about being right or winning for the sake of winning.

So philosophical and deep. I could debate on this for hours!

This is a very interesting statement. It seems very possible that it could, in fact be true. If we accepted everything we were told, there would be no reason to respond when spoken to, except for a gesture of acceptance.

Because i often confuse ethos, pathos and logos, these questions are great examples to distinguish one from the others. It is especially useful because these are questions we (the students) constantly ask ourselves.

I agree that these examples of the types of rhetoric helped me distinguish between the three! Every time I write a paper or just an informal writing assignment I ask myself many of these same questions.

Yes i also often get the three confused but these examples helped out big time!

very good quote. Sad but true. Just because your speaking the truth doesn't mean there isn't someone else with a better argument.

This is important because rhetoric is only as trustworthy as the speaker.

I think that this is looking at rhetoric from one perspective, however I think that rhetoric can also be used as a good thing. Helping people make the right decisions, not necesarilly a "trick with mirrors"

very true, rhetoric can be used to just inform. It's not always used to just trick or persuade. Its a good way to pass on information.

This is a good observation applying the notion of rhetoric not only to humans but to all living things. Wolves for example have a very strict hierarchy that is strictly regulated. The leaders in these poeitions utilize body language and strength, along with experience. Which is all a part of rhetoric.

Great comparison, Alex. Thanks.

This statement clarifies that rhetoric can and does get used in situations when the authors not necessarily right. As stated before with the hitler reference, someone with a good understanding of their audience and rhetoric can do some harmful things.

This is undoubtedly true. To give another example like the one listed below here. Being a sign language interpreting major, here is a cultural barrier problem I have seen. In Deaf culture, Deaf and hard of hearing individuals value directness and being blunt about subjects. If you have put on a little weight, it is nothing for a Deaf person to sign HEY YOU LOOK DIFFERENT, BEFORE THIN NOW FAT HAPPEN? (cultural note, that is ASL syntax, i couldn't really add the facial grammar glosses- but that would be the basic sign order. Prepositions and conjuctions are usually implied) This may be very difficult to accept for a person who is not associated or well-versed with the Deaf community because one may think they are being rude, when really that is how the cultural as a whole is. I have noticed sometimes Deaf and hard of hearing people get frustrated sometimes with people who beat around the bush because they feel that the person that they are communicating with is trying to hide something. This sometimes causes problems, especially if the interpreter forgets to interpret the cultural differences (which happens upon occassion).

An absolutely fascinating comment, Dena. Those of us who are not hearing impaired know that without body language it is often difficult to communicate clearly. For people who depend wholly on body language, it is even more important. Thanks for sharing.

I think you made a really good point with your example. When I think of different cultures, I think of someone who maybe lives in Europe compared to the United States, but your example opened my eyes to a differnt way in looking at cultures. :)

This is a very true statement. Culture affects many different aspects of our lives, so I can definitely see that it would affect how rhetoric is viewed. Even someone from a different culture today may not see the same rhetoric as we see.

I find it interesting how this statement suggests our form of rhetoric is different from the Greek and Roman forms, when we still classify rhetoric based on Aristotle's three appeals.

I really like this phrase and it's explaination, a lot. I've learned about culture shock in many of my classes, but seeing it in this way makes it so much more clear to me how difficult it must be for a person coming from one culture to enter into a competely different culture and have to adjust to the customs of the new culture without knowing basically anything about the culture ahead of time. One of the things they have to adjust to is the rhetoric of the culture.

This really is an interesting way of puting that cultural barrier into perspective for those of us who have never been forced to experiance is.

This part, to me, goes with the fact that culture changes all the time. When the person enters the conversation, it is impossible for them to catch up in every single bit of the discussion, and when they leave, the discussion is still going on, making it impossible to know the entire rest of the conversation. It is, in a way, saying that it's impossible to know every single bit of a culture because it is ever-changing.

Such is life.

Before reading this sentence, I only thought of a person being entered into a new culture from a differnt country, but now I know that it can mean many different tihngs.

I also interpreted it as say going to a new country for the first time but it is now easy to understand how it can mean different things.

This is another example of how rhetoric can be used in every day life.

I think we are rhetoricians all the time; when we speak to someone else that is. I don't think we can be rhetorical to ourselves.

I said it earlier and this makes sense to me also, i think people especially teenagers use rhetoric everday.

rhetoric is definatley everywhere. It's used from trying to decide where to eat dinner to matters of national security. Rhetoric is a skill set that can help anyone in life.

This is definatly something that has happened to me before! Whether it's a new subject in school or just something I happen to be interested in, the first few times I look into it I have no idea what they are talking about but later on it seems so easy!

I could be completely misinterpreting this, but I think that it would be the content of what is being discussed that causes the confusion, not rhetoric. I understand that there are many forms of rhetoric, but don't they all have the same purpose? In some way or another, rhetoric persuades and informs. Again, I could be looking at this the wrong way. I'm interested in seeing other thoughts on this topic.

When someone thinks to hard about anything they make it more complicated that it is. Creativity and clarity usually comes when you least expect it, or when you are not thinking, and this should be applied to everything. Quietness of mind.

This is interesting to think about. Instead of us being able to write and re-write something to make it more rhetorically sound, ancient Greeks only had one opportunity, while speaking, to get it right.

This is interesting, as I discussed last week anything that stays around for a while has to evolve, and adapt to the times.

I've learned that this is very true. It goes back to the old saying that not everything is in black and white. We often find ourselves in the gray area.

This line caught my eye because many of these stories, such as Zeus, Odysseus and Achilles, were taught to us when we were younger and, at the time, we never knew that rhetoric was being used.

I think this assumption is often made because it is such a broad topic that most people do not understand what is considered rhetoric.

This is a good example of how the simplest writing, such as a list, uses rhetoric.

I don't know why but some things seem to get alot more complicated when you start thinking rhetorically.

American's are very to the point when looking at accomplishing goals. Sometimes a little bit to much and it hurts us. However this also why we are number 1. Rhetoric is definitely a clutural aspect as it fluctuates. Rhetoric really is devided into many different ways, depending on who is trying to be convinced. Rhetoric is constantly changing and must be in order to be used effectively.

This is a great example. Teachers are people that we look up to, and expect to understand the topic at hand. We put our faith in their history, and knowledge in that specific topic to help us understand better.

This is exactly what rhetoric is compacted in one sentance. Very good brief description I think.

I agree, great wording. It helps cement the face that rhetoric isn't just some overblown academic technique, but a instinctual ability that you've been honing since childhood.

I think it is interesting to see how how writing and speech have been viewed throughout history. From the Ancients to current day Rhetoric has been looked at in many ways. I dont agree with most rhetoricians today who argue that most speech today is Rhetorical. The main purpose of a speech in my opinion is not to persuade but to motivate.

If a person wants to be good at anything the key word is practice. The student referred to in this paragraph was completely lost in the beginning but soon the tasks ahead of him became simple. This is because of his dedication and practice. The same can be applied to rhetoric. In order to give a good persuasive speech one must practice practice and practice some more. Rhetoric is more than just language its a art.

practice is definatley important. The more you practice rhetoric no matter how foreign it may seem at first, the better you become. And the better you become the more persuasive or informative your argument can be.

Once again I dont think all writing should be looked at as rhetoric. Most writing should not be rhetoric in my opinion.

It is interesting to see how the view of rhetoric changes with the changing of culture.

This is very true (I accidentally read too far last week so now I'm switching since I wrote on the latter half last assignment). Rhetoric is about choices for both parties. The speaker/writer chooses the direction they wish to persuade their audience to feel, and hope that they choose to accept that direction. This is seen everywhere, but as the Presidential Debates are going on as I write this in the background, we will use this an example. McCain and Obama are both posing their choices tonight. They are posing their strategies which choices should be made about our country. Each of them discuss their point of view, and why it is important to them why do carry things out in such a way. We, as the audience, whether watching on TV or at the debates- will make a choice after the are finished (or maybe even before they are finished). Those choices could be to support Obama, McCain, or we can choose to support neither and simply not vote as neither, one may feel, is truly qualified. Even if you don't want to make a choice, eventually you will. And the beauty of this great country is that you're free to choose any of these options. In countries where freedom of speech or choice of how you will place your vote is obsolete- there really is no use for rhetoric, because you lack the power to respond to the messages they give. We might as well put the two names in a hat and draw for President without the power to respond. This is why I'm glad I live in America. We have the choice to respond to rhetoric. We still have most of our liberties that allow us a voice, a number of countries in the world don't have as they under communist rule.

support you claims as to why.

find a concise overall conclusion based on rhetoric and support whatever claims you make.

you use the same sentence struction 3 times in a row. Mix up your structures and usage.

short, choppy writing. Assumed too many social norms.

expand on all your points and use specific examples and quotes to support your claims.

Just work on your style and thought process. Your writing seems a little choppy and unconcise. Try to find a simple to the point thesis and conclusion and work on the flow of your thoght process. Also just some small grammatical and wording mistakes.

This paragraph seems a little lost, none of the points pertain to your thesis. Maybe combine with the previous or next paragraph, or even add some thoughts on rhetoric pertaining to these points.

This paragraph gets closest to your thesis idea, try to combine this and work it in with some of the earlier information. to make a very concise simple thesis statement.

mla format?

this is a lot of good information, you just need to work in explanations from what all this means as far as obama's approach to rhetoric. Maybe how the audience would react to all these points.

no first person

no first person

reword

us to feel

What is this?

This a good and important paragraph for this paper. I would elaborate on this last sentence. Also remember to watch sentence structure.

from

from

You need to describe this better. Really try to back up your statements.

Why is it that ethos plays a role here. Maybe want to give a little more evidence here with some specific examples of why.

Watch sentence structure

In the above paragraph you say McCain did not have factual information. May want to look at this in a little more detail.

This is a good sentence. I can see where you are coming from in this sentence when you say logos is the primary form of rhetoric.

What are the untrue statements?

This is a good sentence in that it relates back to the opening paragraph. I would try to make your conclusion a little stronger.

Attempt to make the conclusion a little stronger. Wouldnt be hard to do and could add alot to the affectiveness of your paper.

You also need an annotated Bibliography

try to stay away from point of views here. Or if he uses hypothetical situations what are they?

Factual information is not necesarilly pertinent here because the war is not over. Maybe use something like history has shown as an example that this will not happen or something along those lines.

This seems also to me like an opinion. What authority does the chairman have. Why would this statement be more credible than the statements and experiences that McCain has had. Maybe give a little more detail in explaining this here.

What are some of these factual informations and where do they come from.

Speling error.

Good quote.

everyday is missing an e

I like how you introduced each candidate. It makes the paper flow much better.

This paragraph is very short. It's a good point, but I think you can go into it further. You could do this by possibly giving another example.

This paragraph's length makes it one of the weaker points of the essay. It starts off with a good transition, but there is no evidence to support that what he stands for on issues.

I see where you're going with this paragraph, but I'm not sure if it's effective. I think that you need to explain individually in the paragraphs exactly what is an example of pathos, what is an example of ethos, and so on. Otherwise, I think it would be hard for people, especially people who don't completely understand rhetoric, to be able to figure out what is an example of which one.

Organization-Your organization was good and clear. With the exception of the conclusion, I wouldn't change anything.