The Writing Assignments

The writing assignments for this class represent several different genres including analysis (rhetorical and content), a collaborative introduction, a debate paper (to be presented in an oral debate and revised into a paper), a letter, and a meta-analysis (the preface).  They also cover different topics from the minimum wage to the elections and Internet freedom.  In these papers you'll explore how rhetoric works, examine the power of visual images to persuade, create your own arguments, and seek to persuade others.  In writing and revising these papers you will also learn how to strengthen your general writing skills.  We will discuss ways to generate ideas; organize those ideas; turn them into papers; and then revise those papers for structure, paragraphing, punctuation, grammar, and style. 

Remember: the more effort you put in, the more learning you get out.  Good luck!

Read Elements of Reasoning (ER) pp.1-11 (stop at "The End of Reasoning"), paying particular attention to the discussion of  ethos, logos, and pathos.  Then explore how those features of argumentation work in the "Newsweek" article on the minimum wage debate.  The first step is to identify them (using colored highlighters or notes in the margins).  How do the ethos, logos, and pathos used by Nancy Gibbs work together in this article?  Is one more effective than the others? Is one more powerful?  Do any of them detract from the article?  Does Gibbs establish sufficient ethos for you to trust her?  Do the people she quotes and summarizes seem trustworthy and sufficiently informed to be reliable?  How does the substance (logos) of her article work?  Is there enough information to convince you of her argument?  What is that argument by the way?  How does she play  on your emotions (using pathos)?  Is it effective?  Generate ideas and questions like this to help you think about the paper.  Then make a claim about the effectiveness of Gibbs's use of ethos, logos, and pathos or draw a conclusion (such as that one feature is more important than the others, or that the article shows how ethos, logos, or pathos can be used to influence readers).  This claim will be your thesis, and your analysis will be used to structure a paper that supports this thesis.

Read Elements of Reasoning (ER) pp.11-32 (stop at "Structures of Reasoning"), paying particular attention to the stasis questions on p. 17 and the discussion of the stasis question "what happened?"  Explore this question in relation to the two Downward Spiral Films ("The Fuhrer Gives a City to the Jews" and "A Visitor From The Living") or to any relevant Multicultural Awareness Week panels, films, or lectures (more than one on the same topic please).  Use the stases and/or topoi to help you generate ideas for this paper.  You may also find it helpful to read ER 49-68 (Chapter 3: "Conjectures").  Your task is to conjecture or speculate on what happened.  This sounds easy, right?  Wrong!  Your assignment is to try to find the shared reality between those participating in the argument.  Is there a shared reality?  What details do the participants agree on?  Are there relevant questions of definition, consequence, or value that will help us find areas of agreement?  When you have explored these questions, make a claim about the presence or absence of shared reality and what effect that has on the disagreement.  Use this claim as your thesis, and use the reasoning you have done to provide a structure for the argument you make in support of that claim (use as many specific details/examples as you can to increase the force of your claim).

Read Elements of Reasoning (ER) pp. 69-80 (Chapter 4: "Definition") and pp. 95-109 (Chapter 6: "Values").  From the EDP website, select a person running for office in the November elections, but not Al Gore, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton,  Rick Lazio, Bob Franks, or Jon Corzine.  If you are registered to vote, select someone who you might vote for in the House of Representatives race (in NJ).  If you are not registered to vote, select one of the candidates I identify in class or on the EDP website.  Look closely at the website for your candidate, paying attention to both the text and the visual elements of the website.  Note the rhetorical strategies used to represent the candidate and look closely at the kinds of definitions being offered. (Look at terms like "America," "democracy," and "trust," and at indirect definitions of who the voters are, what they care about, etc.)  Pay attention for uses of ethos, logos, and pathos, too.  How does the website establish the ethos of the candidate?  Do you feel that he or she speaks for you?  (Why?)  Do you trust the candidate based on what is on the page?  What devices are used to make you trust the candidate?  What about the content of the page (the logos)?  Is there enough information?  What kinds of sources are used?  Is the site designed to appeal to your emotions (pathos)?  Does it try to make you feel patriotic, proud, concerned, angry at the opponent, etc.?  What other stases are being used in the external reasoning you see?  How about the visual appearance and layout of the website--is there a picture of the candidate?  What else is in the picture?  How easy is it to navigate the website?  Does any of this influence your views about the candidate?  If so, how?  Make notes on these things, keeping as many specific examples as you can find.  Remember that these sites will be updated often throughout the campaign, so your notes will need to include the date and time that you accessed the site. 

 When you have explored these questions, make a claim about the most effective aspect of the website (you can define "effective").  Use your analysis of the site to support your claim that it is (or is not) an effective campaign website.

You'll be divided into teams of three.  Each team will be assigned a candidate to follow, and will compile a "candidate log" in which team members  record what their candidate does and says between October 5 and the election.  Together, team members will write an introduction to the log in which they summarize the way their candidate ran his or her campaign. This log and the collaboratively written introduction (Folder #4) are due before the election results have been tallied, so the final task is for the team to predict whether the candidate will win based on what they have recorded in the log.

Read ER 111-119 (Chapter 7: "Procedure and Proposals") and 121-136 (Chapter 8: "Becoming a Citizen Critic").  The same teams as project #4 will use the material in their candidate logs to construct an argument about why everyone should vote for their candidate.  On October 31st and November 2nd we will have two debates in which the teams will pretend to be the representatives of the candidate and the rest of the class will be the audience.  The task of the teams? To persuade us to vote for your candidate on November 7th!  Each team member will present an argument on one aspect of the campaign (we'll decide those issues  in class on October 19, once you've been following the campaign for a while), and the written form of that argument will be paper #5

Paper #6: A Proposal for Change (Freedom and the Internet)

Read Elements of Reasoning (ER)  pp.32-46 (read to the bottom of the page). Using one of the methods discussed in class on November 16, and the topoi you generated in class November 14,  shape an outline for an argument for or against Internet restrictions.

Paper #7:  Becoming a Citizen Critic (Proposing Change at Drew)
 

Review your notes for Chapters 7 and 8 of Elements of Reasoning. What needs to be changed at Drew?  How might we change it?  What about New Jersey?  Write a letter explaining why change is necessary and proposing the change you recommend.  Think about audience and the rhetorical strategies you'll want to use.  How will you establish your ethos?  What information (logos) will you include?  To what extent will you try to provoke emotional responses (pathos) from your readers?  Think about the stases as you plan and draft the first part (review p. 17 of ER for a list).  To what extent do you and your readers share the same understanding of the situation? Are you likely to agree about definitions?  Will you predict the same consequences?  What values come into play?  You'll need to adjust your letter to take all of these things into account.  And finally, once you have considered all of these questions you are ready to answer the big one: what should we do about this problem?

Reread all of the work you have done this semester and write an analysis of the progress you see, the things you still need to work on, and the piece of work of which you are most proud. Your thesis will be a general statement about yourself as a writer, and you will use your work as evidence to support your claim. This paper will be the preface for your final portfolio and should be as honest and thoughtful as possible.