Rhetorical Analysis Reflection

I think I deserve a B on this paper, maybe a low A.  It wasn't as good as it could have been, but I think I did a reasonably good job all the same.  I made a clear claim about how the article is persuasive but ultimately ineffective, and I chose three specific rhetorical devices to analyze.  I used sufficient examples.  I think my analysis was fairly in depth, but occasionally included opinions or only touched lightly on counterarguments to my assumptions.  I could have made the analysis tighter in that respect.  My title was alright but a bit wordy.  It could have been clearer.  However, I think my introduction was pretty good and more on the A side of the rubric.  My body paragraphs could have had smoother transitions between them, but overall I think the flow was decent.  I think I may have had some MLA formatting errors.  For example, on the works cited page I wasn't sure if I should cite the article or the book and ended up using the citation in the book.  I probably have a few grammar errors throughout the paper, but I don't think it's a widespread problem.

If I had another chance, I would've focused on the structure of the paper first to make sure all the required elements ended up in every single paragraph.  I would have been more specific about the audience from the very first drafts of the paper, which would give me more time to get more in depth about my analysis relating specifically to the audience.  I would have been more careful about my opinions and assumptions, and I would have paid more attention to my argument straying from my thesis.

My biggest challenge was keeping my opinions on the issue out of the analysis.  I've seen several documentaries about Wal-Mart on both sides and I have a pretty strong opinion on the issue, so it was hard for me to not think the audience should already be convinced.  Because of that, I was making assumptions about my audience with little basis and some of my arguments fell through.

I think my paper's greatest strength is my analysis.  With the opinions and assumptions removed, I think the actual analysis was pretty good.  I tried to go beyond what was apparent on the surface to make it more interesting and really get at what the author was trying to get the audience to think or do or feel.  I think I accomplished that for the most part.

The Presidential Debates: Blog Post 5

1. Obama's signature half pointing, half fist hand gestures strike a good balance between accusatory finger pointing and angry fist waving.  It emphasizes his points without any negative connotations.
2. Obama uses pathos to generate sympathy from the crowd by mentioning that it's his anniversary.
3. Romney appeared more aware and invested in the topics throughout the entire debate, making his points seem more important.
4. Romney uses pathos through touching personal examples of his and his wife's interactions with voters.
5. Both candidates try to oversimplify their opponent's policies and therefore argue against them more easily.
6. Romney uses repetition when talking about tax cuts and adding to the deficit.
7. Both candidates cite outside sources to add to their ethos and make themselves seem less biased.
8. Both use the red herring fallacy; they kept bringing up other topics and avoiding the specific questions asked by the proctor.
9. Both use post hoc, assuming that the poor economic state of the country is based on Obama's or Bush's actions only.
10. Both candidates use the slippery slope fallacy; Romney suggests that awful things will happen if Obama is reelected and Obama suggests the same in the case of Romney's election.