Solved by verified expert:examine the arguments by David Suzuki, Marion Nestle, Sandra Steingraber, and “Chief Seattle’s Speech,” all dealing with the relationship between humans and nature. You will analyze the various ways these authors make their arguments, and explore how the arguments extend, modify, illustrate or challenge one another. Readings: “Rediscovering Our Place in Nature” by David Suzuki “The farm bill drove me insane” by Marion Nestle “Tune of the Tuna Fish” by Sandra SteingraberAssignment StructureIntro Capture the audience and lead into the topic. Give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed (metadiscourse).Body (for each text)Describe accurately the project and argument. Locate claims and sub-claims and how they are supported.Describe the rhetorical strategies used to support the argument. Provide interpretation and analysis of how these strategies work, particularly how they contribute to the author’s ethos, logos, and pathos appeal. Explain why the author chose these strategies, considering purpose and audience.Discuss assumptions made and any possible fallacies. Support your analysis with sufficient and fitting textual evidence in form of quotes or paraphrases. Link the discussion of the four texts by elaborating on the way they extend, challenge, modify, or illustrate each other.Conclusion What is the significance of the discussion? Why does it matter? Develop a synthesis.End by linking back to the intro.
prompt2_1___2_.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Project #2: Examining Rhetorical Strategies in Multiple Texts on a Significant Public
Argument (120 pts)
In this 5-6 page (~ 2,000 words) paper, you will examine the arguments by David Suzuki,
Marion Nestle, Sandra Steingraber, and “Chief Seattle’s Speech,” all dealing with the
relationship between humans and nature. You will analyze the various ways these authors make
their arguments, and explore how the arguments extend, modify, illustrate or challenge one
another.
Readings:
“Rediscovering Our Place in Nature” by David Suzuki
“The farm bill drove me insane” by Marion Nestle
“Tune of the Tuna Fish” by Sandra Steingraber
“Chief Seattle’s Speech”
Criteria for Evaluation:
1. Develop an introduction that catches the reader’s attention and leads into the topic. Signal the topic
and give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed (metadiscourse).
2. Describe accurately the authors’ projects and arguments. Locate claims and sub-claims and how they
are supported.
3. Compare the rhetorical strategies used to support each argument. Provide interpretation and analysis
of how these strategies work, for example how they contribute to the authors’ ethos, logos, and pathos
appeal. Explain why the authors chose their strategies, considering their purpose and audience as well
as each author’s assumption about this audience.
4. Present ample textual evidence to support the analysis of rhetorical strategies.
5. Use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the next, and be
thoroughly edited so that sentences are readable and appropriate for an academic paper.
6. Employ correct MLA format.
Key learning outcomes: Use multiple texts that examine a significant public argument, identifying and
analyzing the rhetorical strategies used to support the arguments presented. Explain how these strategies
contribute to the authors’ appeals to ethos, logos, pathos. Identify assumptions about the intendent
audience, and evaluate the effectiveness of the texts for this particular audience.
Assignment Structure
Intro
1. Capture the audience and lead into the topic.
2. Give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed (metadiscourse).
Body (for each text)
1. Describe accurately the project and argument. Locate claims and sub-claims and how they are
supported.
2. Describe the rhetorical strategies used to support the argument. Provide interpretation and analysis of
how these strategies work, particularly how they contribute to the author’s ethos, logos, and pathos
appeal. Explain why the author chose these strategies, considering purpose and audience.
3. Discuss assumptions made and any possible fallacies.
4. Support your analysis with sufficient and fitting textual evidence in form of quotes or
paraphrases.
5. Link the discussion of the four texts by elaborating on the way they extend, challenge, modify,
or illustrate each other.
Conclusion
1. What is the significance of the discussion? Why does it matter?
2. Develop a synthesis.
3. End by linking back to the intro.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
