In this paper you criticize an artifact using one of the methods discussed in class, other than the Neo-Aristotelian method (don’t just analyze ethos
In this paper you criticize an artifact using one of the methods discussed in class, other than the Neo-Aristotelian method (don’t just analyze ethos, pathos, logos, etc.).YOU CANNOT USE A NEO-ARISTOTELIAN METHOD FOR THIS PAPER. You may choose any artifact (not just a speech), provided it has a significant message, is in the public sphere, and that it is demonstrably persuasive.Points to consider:
1) Choose any artifact that is a persuasive message and is a public communication. It should have a significant message, be a complete artifact (not a partial clip or portion), and be in the public sphere (not private or personal communication). It can be a speech (like Paper 1), but can also be a film, ad, book, video, song, poster, flyer, e-zine, website, etc.
2) Set up the analysis in the paper with these parts:
A. Explain the context of the message, The background or context for the message should give an understanding of why this is an important or significant message. Who created it, under what circumstances, and for what audience? What is the specific background, or the “spirit of the times” in which this message is created?
B. Clarify the method or concepts you will use for your analysis. How do you propose we look at this artifact?
C. Include and italicize a Thesis Statement (or focused Research Question) which identifies the main elements of your analysis and summarizes your position on the implications of the speech. This should be a single explanatory overview that is also a concise single sentence.
4) Analyze the message in this way:
A. Apply specific vocabulary terms (concepts) from your chosen method (dramatism, narrative, ideology, genre, etc) to the artifact. If you are using terms from more than one method, make sure one of the methods is the primary focus.
B. Develop ideas in some depth (AT LEAST A PAGE/SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS PER MAIN POINT, or vocabulary concept). Support your arguments with clear examples from your artifact using concepts from the module.
C. Limit the number of main points… Usually 3 for the analysis, plus 1 for Context and 1 for Implications makes a maximum of 5 main points altogether. Avoid using a “laundry list” of theoretical ideas.
5) Provide a final main point giving a clear evaluation
A. Using the analysis in the paper, summarize the importance, value or aesthetics of the message. This does NOT have to focus on Effect as in Paper 1, but can look at other reasons for importance or significance.
B. Identify any interesting puzzles or further ideas that this might spark
C. Include a final section tying things together in some way, answering the “so what?” question. That is, what do you gain from doing this kind of criticism; what do you learn about the message which, in turn, can contribute to further knowledge or social awareness about this kind of rhetoric?
6) Paper Requirements
*6-8 pages TYPED, double-spaced, 12-point font, 1″ margins (Page length does NOT include the outline, abstract, title page, or bibliography).
*Provide FULL, ARGUMENTATIVE TITLES for all the main points in the paper (these should match the outline).
*NEW: You MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST FIVE (5) REFERENCES WHICH ARE USED IN THE PAPER, CITED USING PROPER APA FORM, AND REPRESENTED IN A FINAL SECTION OF REFERENCES OR BIBLIOGRAPHY. I expect AT LEAST THREE QUOTES IN THE PAPER. You can use sources to develop your theoretical position, to give background to the issue, or to comment on the artifact. Your artifact itself counts as a reference AND MUST BE CITED.
*Attach an OVERVIEW OUTLINE (1-2 pages) of your paper at the front of the paper.
*NEW: Provide an ABSTRACT (50-75 words) on the title page or before the outline that summarizes what your paper is about. This is NOT A PREVIEW STATEMENT. It is a summary of your main arguments and your overall claim about the artifact (not “first, I will talk about this,” but more like “My arguments about this artifact are that…”
Solution preview for the order on In this paper you criticize an artifact using one of the methods discussed in class, other than the Neo-Aristotelian method (don’t just analyze ethos