Introduction rightly includes the summary, but it feels way too long within your analysis. Surely we need to understand what she is essentially arguing, but like in your summary assignment, at some points, the writing is just wordy or perhaps missing some polish "In some this insights outrage because of..." What is "this" referring to? By stating before that the she explains how advertising has become an appeal to emotion, you confuse me and possibly other audiences when you later say that Kilbourne (not advertisements) are appealing to our emotion. The identical phrasing can cause confusion. Keep the two categories organized. You next say "Furthermore, she appeals to our desire..." and it's hard to see how this doesn't go later in your analysis. This is a detail that doesn't go in a summary. In sum, this introduction sentence is far too long and wordy.
But your purpose section is nicely wrought and very clear. I had wished that came much earlier IN your introduction.
Identifying Kilbourne works well here, but your audience analysis seems thin. Is it really true that for this article, the audience is anyone that will listen? Well, perhaps partly, but for this artifact that seems a bit shallow. Does she not imply this in some places in her writing? Remember that sometimes authors imply or simply state who they are talking to, and we don't always have to consult secondary sources to figure it out.
Your style section just doesn't seem like style to me, except where you say that she "provides imagery." The title is certainly style, too, but when you say the delivery relates to style, you don't seem as clear here as you did in your presentation. Perhaps what's also needed in this section (apart from the obvious reference to the title) is the way the examples create imagery in audiences' minds. You don't provide an example, and thus much of this is more conceptual than concrete. For example, you say "Kilbourne makes use of speech that provides imagery..." Well, like what?
I thought that second paragraph was a transition to organization (because cause and effect is an organization technique not a style technique), but it's obvious you think that's style. I suggest moving that section down.
Your organization section provides an outline (more like a summary) of the way the piece is organized, but it doesn't do analysis. I thought she organized by cause and effect; where is that discussion and how that organizational technique is effective for her audience? How is the outline you provide an example of persuasive organizational technique? Writing by giving examples is an invention strategy (substance), so I feel that for most of what you have, you have some organizational and labeling problems here.
You write that her argument is effective, but your only basis it seems is that she does just has a good case and has good points. But you don't clearly state that it's the manner in which she states it (her persuasive strategies) that make it effective. How has her style made it effective overall? How has her organization made it effective overall? How about the invention strategy of using lots of examples? This section is missing much of that, and seem to be off-topic for your purpose in analyzing rhetoric here.
You seem to have added a section about recommending her argumentation style (Good!), but it's a bit thin. What about the subject matter (and other subject matter) would make this rhetoric effective or ineffective? (affective has to do with psychology; effective has to do with efficiency and meeting purposes, which is what we mean here).
Your last paragraph tries to state that you have likewise used some of her techniques. I'm not sure that works very well, but it's a good attempt. Because of your statement about why her argumentation style is not recommended, we may not be sure why you are trying to use it.
Overall, I see lots of improvement from your first rounds of this. You should be proud of that work, but for the final portfolio, some sections of this need revision and editing, including looking over this for more concise and clear writing style.
Introduction rightly includes the summary, but it feels way too long within your analysis. Surely we need to understand what she is essentially arguing, but like in your summary assignment, at some points, the writing is just wordy or perhaps missing some polish "In some this insights outrage because of..." What is "this" referring to? By stating before that the she explains how advertising has become an appeal to emotion, you confuse me and possibly other audiences when you later say that Kilbourne (not advertisements) are appealing to our emotion. The identical phrasing can cause confusion. Keep the two categories organized. You next say "Furthermore, she appeals to our desire..." and it's hard to see how this doesn't go later in your analysis. This is a detail that doesn't go in a summary. In sum, this introduction sentence is far too long and wordy.
ReplyDeleteBut your purpose section is nicely wrought and very clear. I had wished that came much earlier IN your introduction.
Identifying Kilbourne works well here, but your audience analysis seems thin. Is it really true that for this article, the audience is anyone that will listen? Well, perhaps partly, but for this artifact that seems a bit shallow. Does she not imply this in some places in her writing? Remember that sometimes authors imply or simply state who they are talking to, and we don't always have to consult secondary sources to figure it out.
Your style section just doesn't seem like style to me, except where you say that she "provides imagery." The title is certainly style, too, but when you say the delivery relates to style, you don't seem as clear here as you did in your presentation. Perhaps what's also needed in this section (apart from the obvious reference to the title) is the way the examples create imagery in audiences' minds. You don't provide an example, and thus much of this is more conceptual than concrete. For example, you say "Kilbourne makes use of speech that provides imagery..." Well, like what?
I thought that second paragraph was a transition to organization (because cause and effect is an organization technique not a style technique), but it's obvious you think that's style. I suggest moving that section down.
Your organization section provides an outline (more like a summary) of the way the piece is organized, but it doesn't do analysis. I thought she organized by cause and effect; where is that discussion and how that organizational technique is effective for her audience? How is the outline you provide an example of persuasive organizational technique? Writing by giving examples is an invention strategy (substance), so I feel that for most of what you have, you have some organizational and labeling problems here.
ReplyDeleteYou write that her argument is effective, but your only basis it seems is that she does just has a good case and has good points. But you don't clearly state that it's the manner in which she states it (her persuasive strategies) that make it effective. How has her style made it effective overall? How has her organization made it effective overall? How about the invention strategy of using lots of examples? This section is missing much of that, and seem to be off-topic for your purpose in analyzing rhetoric here.
You seem to have added a section about recommending her argumentation style (Good!), but it's a bit thin. What about the subject matter (and other subject matter) would make this rhetoric effective or ineffective? (affective has to do with psychology; effective has to do with efficiency and meeting purposes, which is what we mean here).
Your last paragraph tries to state that you have likewise used some of her techniques. I'm not sure that works very well, but it's a good attempt. Because of your statement about why her argumentation style is not recommended, we may not be sure why you are trying to use it.
Overall, I see lots of improvement from your first rounds of this. You should be proud of that work, but for the final portfolio, some sections of this need revision and editing, including looking over this for more concise and clear writing style.