Rhetorical Analysis Thesis propsal

For my Rhetorical analysis I will write about Patrick Clarks American Justice and Divine Mercy. For me, it was one of the most convincing arguments I read. I read the paper not having the same thought as his, but left thinking about the same thing. He understood his audience well, Christians, and referenced many biblical thoughts and ideas, even scriptures.

From those scriptural ideas he appealed to the base values people are taught in Sunday school, basically playing off of ethos. In his paper, he didn’t just reference the bible to get support though. He stated things the bible taught, and then he put them together to make a solid defense for his point, (mainly for Christians, but once again, that was his audience) playing off of Logos. By starting his paper with “Here are just a couple scattered thoughts that came swirling into my mind in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death:” He showed that he was more speaking from his heart. That made people listen to what he had to say, because it felt more sincere. That coupled with the emotion of the time and topic, made the paper a very strong Pathos paper too.

Patrick Clark’s paper might not have been the longest paper, or maybe the most convincing to the general audience. Given his audience though, the paper was very effective in using rhetorical arguments and so was very convincing

style academy 3

Absolute phrases

            I looked for an activity that I thought I could help me, so I decided to try the absolute phrases activity. In my past paper, I seemed to lack some conviction in what I was saying. I had a lot of logic, but instead of really saying “This is the way it is” I said “I think it’s this way”. That is not very effective in a rhetorical situation, so I wanted to try to do better and I thought that absolute phrases might be able to help me. They sound firm and strong, what I need.

            The Concept really was not what I Thought it was at all. Instead of teaching me how to write more forcefully, confidently, it taught me how to combine two sentences in a different way. I was sad that it didn't teach me what I thought it would, but I did find the writing style to be more intriguing. I agree that the separated sentences he showed were boring, and Being able to combine them into one flowing sentence, just by taking out the “to be” verb, was really cool. I can definitely see how that would help me to keep the readers intrigued in what I was writing. Honestly, I have the most fun with these activates when it allows me to add my own parts to the sentence, like it did with the last exercise. That allows me to add what I want to the stories, intrigue, mystery, shock, whatever I feel like. I am not sure I am doing the method right, I often just add “ing” to the verbs to make it fit, but he said that was one of the strategies. So I might not have gotten what I expected out of this assignment, but what I did get will help me to be a more compelling speaker, and I need that.

Faith in america Review

Pathos: Mitt Romney did not use Ethos very effectively in his speech. He did talk about things that would cause emotion in groups of Americans. He got the emotion of the defenders of this nation by mentioning those who want to destroy it. He sought those who love America by quoting the founders. He tried, but his talk ended up sounding just like another talk from a politician vying for more supporters, not sincere or from the heart.

Ethos: Mitt Romney Used ethos a lot better. By quoting the Founders of this nation, he got their support on this topic. Their words are highly respected and Mitt Romney showed well how they sought freedom of religion, not the destruction of it. He added to his own credibility by talking about his family and the things they had done, like March with martin Luther king, and give aid to the needy. He effectively fought for our trust.

Logos: I found the Logos of the paper to be mediocre. He did point out how the founders didn't want leaders to be tested about their religion, and people seeking the candidate’s belief are doing that exact thing. He also points out how many religions have common values running through them that help the nation and people in general. He finally points out how those seeking to remove god from the state are seeking to enforce secularism. He had some solid points, just not quite enough.