Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Carolina Gonzalez

October 19, 2017


Rhetorical Analysis Draft 2

Part 1
One of my most recent memorable pieces of writing that I have encountered throughout my
educational career is a rhetorical analysis itself that I wrote in my English 1 class last semester.
This piece of writing was the most memorable to me, the reason being that it was the first rhetor-
ical writing I was ever assigned. I will admit that it was a bit tedious to comprehend and to write;
I did not quite understand the concept of a rhetorical analysis. As the author of Rhetorical Situ-
ations and Their Constituents. Keith Grant-Davie, stated The idea of a rhetorical situation
might not be completely clear to you right away- most people need to encounter the idea in sev-
eral different ways before they really start to get a handle on it (348). This was my encounter. A
rhetorical analysis is a prompt different than any other regular prompt. It requires very close at-
tention to what the author is portraying, the idea or opinion, and what tools the author uses to
portray that idea or opinion. Although I was completely lost as to where to begin and how exact-
ly to put it together, I felt I had grasped the notion of how to correctly write a rhetorical analysis.
A little background and general information about my chosen piece of writing; the rhetorical
analysis I wrote contains seven paragraphs, is three pages long, double-spaced, twelve point font,
and written in the third person. It reflects the writing of another article, which I will now be re-
analyzing. This memorable piece of writing was written with the purpose to depict an article and
to reassure myself and my former professor that I clearly understood the article I chose to rhetor-
ically analyze. The reason behind my writing was to address the purpose and to depict the ele-
ments the author of the article utilized to persuade the audience. Also, in my piece of writing, I
stated whether the authors use of elements worked on myself and whether I was persuaded or
not and why.
The overall context of my writing is academic and studential. As a student, I am very limited
to certain experiences and knowledge that would give my paper a different taste and stronger
language. What gave rise to this paper was analyzing and depicting every element that made the
article a persuasive one, and then clearly describing each and every one of those elements. When
developing my rhetorical analysis in my former English class, I faced a few constraints that put a
halt on my ideas. To begin with, I am not very assimilated with rhetorically analyzing a text and
then having to write about it. I was not familiar or even good at writing in an impersonal style. I
usually like inputting my personal opinion, but I could not do so in this writing.
As for audience, I was writing as if my professor were my intended audience. For the most
part, my professor was meant to read or use my writing since she was the one who pushed me to
write this piece. But my fellow peers could have also read and used my writing towards their
own writing, they could learn from my mistakes to correct theirs. From this writing not only did I
learn how write a rhetorical analysis, but I also learned how to detect and depict the various
methods authors use to bring about and persuade ideas to the audience. Writers who recognize
how to dissect these situations have a better strategy of examining casualty, they also have a
much forceful basis for making composing decisions (Grant-Davie 349).
Part 2
The disciplinary major chosen to analyze is Nutrition (Natural Science). After reading about
the style of writing in this field, it is interpreted that the writing within the major of natural sci-
ence is straight to the point, short, and simple. The writing contains no humor, irony, or sarcasm
because only facts and data are being stated, oness opinion should not be included. Not only is it
very concise, but is very concrete and not open to one or more interpretations. The writing is
separated into different sections- Abstract, Introduction, Experiment, Results/ Data, Discussion,
and Conclusion. Many tables and figures are included to support the data and ideas being pre-
sented in the writing.
Some of the very unacceptable things within the writing of natural science are having numer-
ous and obvious misspelled words, being excessively redundant; never repeat what has already
been said. A great importance is citing peer-reviewed journals and scholars books. The main exi-
gence of writing in the natural science expectations is to explore questions about the physical
universe and to hypothesize and experiment; explaining and providing data and information
about those hypothesis and experiments. The context is of well-educated and experienced people
in the major of natural science, proving and teaching others of what has been explored and dis-
covered. As perceived from the reading, the intended audience are other people within the natural
science major, professors, and those who are interested in the findings of the writer. Writers in
this field write to professors and to the outer community of natural science to not only express a
hypothesis, but to express it scientifically through observations and data.

Part 3
The piece of writing chosen in part 1 compared to the writing expected of natural science ma-
jors are distinct in major way, yet a bit similar in distant ways. Scientific writing mandates rigor
and accuracy. In the sciences, words most of the time have specific meanings; this can be a chal-
lenge for many students. It is expected that students integrate figures, graphs, and tables into re-
ports flawlessly. Having the ability to assemble figures, graphs, and tables is a vital part of the
craft of scientific writing (DeGraffenreid 106). Many choices and changes need to be made in
order for the piece of writing chosen in part 1 to be permitted under major of natural science. Al-
though writing in natural science contains a bit of similarity, for example, Figures may be used
in the experimental section if they show an instrument was set up or to show visually how an ex-
periment was carried out (CSUS Handbook 111) which is almost like a quote in the english
writing. Making it for the most part very unlikely that the rhetorical analysis in part 1 would be
accepted by an instructor who specializes in the field of natural science.
Both writings are completely different and ask of two completely different things. The rhetor-
ical analysis would actually be the complete opposite of the natural science writing. The reason
being that the rhetorical analysis contains more of a lively and humorous language, it is not at all
straight to the point, the structure, style, language do not fit the guidelines, and is not exactly
elaborating or proving a hypothesis. In its totality, a professor in the natural science would be
allergic to the paper in part 1 in a detesting way. Aside from all the negativity, many things could
be grasped and learned from chosen major for future reference. The principles of language, con-
centration, context, purpose, and supporting details could be drawn from this writing to aid in
future situations. When the chance to write in the chosen field of natural science is given, the
guidelines, structure, and language will already be assimilated; the writing will then be accepted.

Carolina Gonzalez
Revision Summary
Before even writing the second draft, I knew my first draft was an absolute disaster and was
missing many components. Thankfully my peers were able to point those components out for me
and honest enough to let me know what needed fixing in my essay. The first thing I did was sep-
arate my essay into the three parts that we were asked to compose. I feel this would make my
paper look a lot more clean and organized. I was told that I needed to be a bit more descriptive
and also that my introduction was missing the feel of an introduction, I went back and added why
I found the rhetorical analysis difficult and explained the a bit more the piece of writing I chose.
As for part 3, I wrote in a personal style of writing when I was not supposed to. I did not even
catch that myself when re-reading my paper; I changed the few words that were written in first
person. When going over part 3 myself I did not at all like the way I began writing that para-
graph; it sounded confusing and in all honesty, disgusting. It was difficult to rephrase it in a de-
tached impersonal style of writing because I was so tempted to write words like I and my but
I tried my best to make it sound good and detached impersonal. My peers also reminded me that
two quotes and to paraphrases were required for parts 1 and 3 of the writing, which I am embar-
rassed to even admit. So I went back a few steps and read the handbook for the writing of the
major I chose all over again. This refreshed my memory and made it easier to find a quote that
would best fit into my writing, as well for paraphrasing. Before I read my essay once more to
check for any more errors I added more to the conclusion of part 3. I felt it was too dense and
needed more decription about why it would be a good paper or not. Although correcting the er-
rors in my first shitty draft was time consuming, I am glad my peers were honest with pointing
out the horrid parts of my essay.