assignment for my Coms430 on Pentadic Practicum analysis on this Youtube video as an
artifact (I will put a link down below), its an essay for May 17th, please take a look and let me
know if you can work on this essay, here is the descriptions. I Attached the textbook and also
here are the guidelines for paper 2.
here is the research question “How does Language affect our reality?”
The following guidelines provide a basic organizational framework for your critical papers. A
similar method of organization is presented in the textbook, Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and
Practice.
Criticisms should be divided into five sections as described below:
[1] Introduction.
In this section, the critic needs to introduce the topic of the paper and present the thesis
of the criticism. Remember, a rhetorical criticism should not be a mere application of a method
to some rhetorical artifact. Rather, the criticism should have some point, and that point will be
expressed in the thesis of the paper. As the point of the criticism depends upon the conclusions
of your analysis (see [5] below), it is often not possible to frame the thesis of the criticism until
the analysis has been completed and at least a rough outline of the conclusions prepared.
PLEASE UNDERLINE YOUR THESIS.
[2] Background
Once the thesis has been clearly presented, the critic needs to describe the selected artifact. In
this description, the critic needs to address a number of topics. First, the critic should provide a
summary of the artifact and an analysis of the factors that gave rise to the artifact, especially the
exigence the artifact seeks to redress. Second, the critic should describe the rhetorical
function(s) of the artifact, explicating the attitudes, beliefs, or actions the artifact seeks to induce.
Third, the critic should demonstrate the significance of the artifact, explaining why their selected
artifact merits critical attention. Significance can be established in three ways. First, a rhetorical
artifact may be significant because it has had a strong or widespread effect on one or more
audiences. Second, a rhetorical artifact may be significant because it is typical or
representative of many other rhetorical artifacts. Third, a rhetorical artifact may be significant
because it is unique and, therefore, may demonstrate some unusual rhetorical principle.
[3] Summary of method.
In this section, the critic will present their analysis of the artifact. This requires two basic
steps. First, the critic needs to present a brief introduction to the critical method. This need not
exceed two paragraphs, but should nonetheless fulfill two functions: [1] it should acquaint the
reader with the general nature of the method and [2] it should justify the suitability of the
selected method for the purposes of the critic’s analysis.
[4] Analysis
After reviewing the critical method, the critic will then present the findings of the analysis.
This section will typically be the most developed section of the criticism. Although the
organization of this section will vary depending upon the particular critical method employed, the
critic must present their findings using a clearly articulated organization. Two such
organizations are commonly used. First, a critic might organize their analysis in terms of the
features of the rhetorical artifact itself (e.g., the main points of a speech or the chronological
presentation of scenes in a movie). Second, the critic might organize their analysis in terms of
the rhetorical concepts being applied (e.g., the terms of Burke’s pentad). A conceptual
organization is generally, though not always, preferred. Additional suggestions for organizing
this section are presented in the chapters of the textbook corresponding to the various critical
methods.
[5] Discussion.
In this section of the criticism, the critic will interpret the findings of their analysis and
suggest further implications. In the first of these tasks, the critic is seeking to answer two
important questions. The first question is: “How do the findings of this analysis illuminate the
rhetorical function or significance of the selected rhetorical artifact?” This question focuses on
explaining the artifact based the findings of the analysis. The second question is: “What do the
findings of this analysis tell us about the value of the selected rhetorical artifact?” This question
focuses on evaluating the artifact based upon the findings of the analysis and is typically
answered in terms of the effectiveness and/or appropriateness of the artifact. The answers to
these questions constitute what are commonly called the conclusions of the criticism. The
conclusions of your analysis are the payoff of the analysis and should be prepared and
presented carefully. As noted above, the conclusions will also guide the development of the
thesis of the criticism in that they establish the point of your criticism.
The second task—presenting the implications of the analysis—also requires the critic to
consider two questions: “What might this analysis tell us about the nature and/or functions of
other similar rhetorical artifacts?” and “How might this analysis contribute to rhetorical theory?”
Thus, the purpose of the implications is to provide some generalizations based upon the
findings of the analysis. This section is typically brief but is useful for providing a context for
your analysis within the field of rhetorical studies.
Youtube video on Secrets of success by Richard St John
Pentadic Criticism essay samples startinng- Page 382
-‐—-‐————– —————–“—–
The criticism is about his purpose and the motives behind the speech that he is giving.
For Paper #2, you can do ANY of the methods EXCEPT Neo-Aristotelian. FULL GUIDELINES
ARE HERE.
You must also use a NEW artifact for your analysis (one that you have not used before, one we
have not seen another student already do, and one we have not already discussed in class). If
you struggle with artifact selection, you can always look to politics, art, architecture, advertising,
music, etc. There are tons of options out there. Get creative!
PLEASE UNDERLINE YOUR THESIS.
This paper is 6-8 pages. You must hit page 6, not including your works cited page, to be eligible
for a C or higher.
Rubric below:
