ENC1102-706F08

You can use this when you revise your paper. You could briefly talk about what torture is, then go on to explain what rhetoric is.

This seems like it's your opinion. The assignment says to try to keep our opinions separate from the paper.

Assignment Parameters-Your paper definitely maintains a main idea, but it is not the idea that the assignment was intended to create.

Style-Your sentence structure varies and I understand what points you are trying to get across, but once again, they are not the points that need to be made in this particular paper. Your point of view, for the most part, is appropriate because you are stating facts, but as far as your opinion, you need to try to keep your opinion out of the paper completely, even though that is sometimes very hard to do.

Development-Your details do develop your main idea, but once again, your main idea wasn't what was assigned for this paper. The paper was mostly supposd to be about rhetoric and its effects on particular pieces of work. I can tell you took time to work on your paper, and if it followed the directions, I think it would be a pretty good paper, but as far as following directions, you did not. I would suggest you go back and look through the directions for the assignment again.

Look at the different types of torture. It is not mainly mental, there are a lot of physical types of torture, too.

Look at the way these sentences are worded. A few of the don't make sense and they are choppy. Just try to reword these sentences and word them a little better.

Pay attention to your grammer, copy it to a word document to spell check it before the final draft.

Be srue to analyze the authors use of rhetoric in each article.

good point

fragment

omit

omit

paper is good, just try to get out of using 1st person so often, if at all

omit

omit

structure

Overall, paper has good content and organization. All the references were used correctly and good points were made. The only things to work on are getting the paper out of 1st person, and using stronger transitions.

overuse of phrase

ignore this comment... i dont know why it was put here!

over use of the phrase

unnecessary

unnecessary

historian, he was

This whole sentence is confusing to me!

Could just start the sentrence with "Both of them"

Why is one capitalized and the other is not?

These few short sentences on publication are great, however I don't feel you provide enough evidence.

No transitional phrases!

This paragraph, although informational and very persuasive, does not represent the rhetorical issues the paper is supposed to deal with. I think the paper was supposed to be about how the authors used rhetoric and style to write their journals, not actually about torture.

WHAT?!?!?!

Good transition

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.

Convention- Incorrect spelling

Convention- wrongly capitalized

Convention- order would make more sense here

Convention- sentense doesn't make sense

Convention-sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- and/or

Convention- commas are needed around "although not acceptable in today's society"

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- should just be Levin

Convention- should be "and of making a choice"

Convention- Levin

Convention-Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. The mother said she would want to administer the torture not just watch.

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Convention- doens't make sense

Convention- parts of sentence don't make sense, wrong tense used for reason

Convention- commas needed around "when needed", need to specify who has no knowledge

Convention- sentence changes tense

Convention- should be "and is considered Lincoln's"

Convention- sentence doesn't make sense

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- This is wrong. Foner is just citing "sentiments that are likely to be with us for some time to come." The article is actually about how he thinks "the most patriotic act of all is the unyielding defense of civil liberties."

Convention- commas are also needed around the quote

Convention- doesn't make sense

Convention- the authors have a similar style of writing not the magazine

Convention- Levin

Convention- This is wrong. As I stated earlier Foner completely disagrees with these actions and McCullagh never even says that he agress with the actions taken by our government.

Convention- doesn't make sense

Organization- The closing doesn't really relate to the rest of the paper. Ethics is only mentioned one time before this.

Organization- There is no opening to the paper. You go right into discussing your first article instead of introducing your main idea.

Convention- Ursula

Convention- Levin

Convention- Levin

Assignment Parameters- The paper does not really reflect the idea that was assigned. There is only one reference to rhetorical basis and style (pathos, logos, or ethos). You didn't always state whether the author was for or against torture. You also didn't really mention anything about the credentials or authority of any authors or sources so there was nothing about how this affects the success of the message. You also did not research any additional articles on torture so there was obviously no discussion about their specific claims or how they use situation and fact.

Organization- There are a lot of good details used in the paragraphs about LeGuin's story but many of the things talked about do not relate to the topic. The first two paragraphs are good discussion on the story but don't relate to the subject of torture and there is no mention about how this author uses rhetorical strategies.

You use a lot of good details and quotes throughout the paper but the fact that you have incorrect references and have the whole idea of Foner's article wrong might make your paper look unreliable.

The paper doesn't tie together very well. For one of the authors you talked about rhetoric, for one you talked about different aspects of the plot and for some you gave too much review of the information in the article and not enough about the message they were trying to portray and the writing style they used to get it across to the readers.

The paragraphs about Levin are good. You use details that help develop your ideas and also state what kind of rhetoric style he uses to persuade his readers.

The paragraphs about McCullagh have too much review and not enough of your ideas on his writing style, message or credentials.

The paragraph about Foner's article is really confusing to me. Not only are your references not accurate with his article but I don't understand that sentence about how he claims "his views on terrorism by bringing people right of speech"?

Your bibliography page is also supposed to be in MLA format, not just the link to the website.

sentence error?

i like this, its a strong point.

add an s.

typo

good point

i believe you have to site this? since you are reiterating what he has said.

I think this is an interesting point that might be worth exploring a bit more in-depth at some point in the semester. Does The Daily Show get a "free pass" due to its status as a comedy show? What are some undoubtedly valid arguments it has presented over the years, and what are some examples of arguments that maybe get lost in the slapstick?

This comment reminds me of a discussion I have had with previous classes about the rhetoric of clothing and body decorations (tatoos, piercings, etc) Many students would often say something to the effect of "My clothes help me express who I am as a person." I sometimes think of Facebook the same way - it's like the clothes we wear on the Internet.

Brilliant!

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.