My goal for the week is to have a completed rough draft of my essay by Friday-ish. The hardest part about this essay, for me, has been organizing my thoughts and information and then figuring out how to organize my paper. Up until this past Saturday evening whilst watching my beloved Hockey Night in Canada broadcast (you tell 'em Barry! stupid lightning are stupid...) I was hopelessly confused, doubtful about what i was writing about and how i was going to write it. thankfully my gf helped me out. i am feeling much better about writing this thing now. so indulge me as i write out my thoughts here.
my plan for this essay, as of now, is to analyze the the rhetorical elements of two documents. The first document is a letter written and signed by a whole bunch of individual biologists and other scientists and 900 relevant organizations arguing for the support of the Endangered Species Act, that congress should not weaken it, and that they should provide more financial and legislative support for the ESA. Since this letter is written by scientists i thought it would be interesting to analyze it through the lens of Aristotle. I have identified usage of ethos, logos, and pathos, but mostly ethos. It is possible that I might find some other something to analyze this letter with if i need to.
Next, i will analyze a document that argues against the ESA, and just like before i will find a theory or theorist to be my primary tool for study. I have found a letter that has been written by a guy named Peyton Knight who works for a conservative think tank that i think will work. it was written in response to some legislation that he disagreed with (of which i also have available) and as he argues against the legislation he is also arguing against the ESA. (Alternatively, i could just contrast the legislative article with the response letter but only if it is advised).
Finally, i will conclude the essay by comparing and contrasting the two documents. i will discuss how each document was successful or not, and why as well as explore why each document chose to use the rhetorical elements that it did.
No comments:
Post a Comment