Complete a rough draft of your Source-Based Essay. This should include a complete rhetorical analysis of your four sources, as well as a general introduction and a “synthesis” section in which you compare the rhetorical elements of your four sources. Post this to blackboard before class time on Monday September 20th.
Additionally, read each of the three sample essays under the “Source-Based Essay” section under the “Writing and Reflecting” tab on the course site. They are labeled as “Sadia”, “Rifat”, and “Anonymous”. Comment below with a general response summarizing the differences between these three essays. In particular, consider the following questions:
How are they organized differently? Why do the authors choose to organize them in these ways? Do you think these authors make effective or ineffective rhetorical choices, either in their organization or otherwise?
The difference is even though all three of these rhetorical analysis establish their essays perfectly in the same format of an rhetorical analysis paper, they explained it in a different category and. For example, with Rifat, she reached out in her essay that writing a research based essay is like a journey, it makes many miles of practice for your essay to be unique and exquisite. In Sadia’s essay, she states about flexibility, and how she uses that flexibility to help build her strength of writing an essay. Sadia also states that when doing a theory of writing, one must use the compositions of essays from the past and then using that to write a new strong based essay. In the Anonymous’ essay, it tells us the process of stigmatization’s affects on patients with mental illness. What was wise for the Anonymous’ essay was he used his sources to not only make his essay strong, but to make his points formal. However, it is also op-ed because each professional discusses how mental illness affects the patience, as well as obgyn affection before, during, and after pregnancy for women.
Overall, all of the authors chose to organize them in these ways because they are showing us many ways on how to write a strong source-based essay, but not all essays have to be perfect, it takes a lot of practice throughout the years for it to be flexible and great. These authors make effective rhetorical choices in their essays, I liked how they format their lines properly, explained their methods well and the way they explained it. All of the three source-based essay all used the articles, magazines, and scholarly websites to help them focus on the goals for the audience, and that is what a rhetorical essay is about.
After reading through the examples, I realized that the way they presented their ideas was similar but completely different at the same time. For example, both Sadia and Rifat broke their ideas up and labeled them based on what they were about, such as “genre”, “purpose,” etc. While Anonymous presents their ideas as a complete essay instead of labeling or breaking off their work. Each writer chose to write the way they did as it showcased their improvement, and as they were continuously exposed to different types of writing, they learned what to do with theirs. Rifat states, “As throughout this course I had to read lot of articles on my topic, I’ve seen different ways of presenting the ideas, knowledge, and purpose of the writer through his/her different stances.” He then goes on to say “This different way of writings has completely changed and differed this two articles from each other. This understanding of rhetorical situations has helped me a lot to do experiments in different genres of writing and it has helped me to clearly understand different topics properly.” Rifat chose to write in a straightforward way (bullet points/headers) because they knew that the article was long and wanted to give the audience a better understanding of what it entailed. Anonymus, on the other hand, used their understanding of rhetorical features to enhance their writing and, therefore, was granted freedom within their writing. Anonymous states, “By being able to clearly identify things like my audience, which was my professor, my purpose, which was diagnosing a patient, it gave me assurance that my writing was on the right track, which led me to be more flexible in it. By the end of my paper, I not only wrote a conclusion that tied all the main points, but I took it one step further in predicting what the client’s life would be like.” Anonymus also states “We are always coming out of it knowing just a little more than we did before because we put our thoughts to paper, allowing it to roam free.” Lastly, Sadia wrote in a way that she was comfortable and confident with. For example, she states, “When I wrote for this class and other classes, I realized that I write better if I am surrounded by certain things.” I think all of them made effective rhetorical choices as they carefully chose sources that pertained to their topics and explained each aspect of them in the ways that seemed best. They each did what was required, and even though it was organized differently, they hit each point they were supposed to.
Whilst reading the three sample essays I notices several similarities between them but what stood out to me was how differently each writer approached the essay. The way each writer began their essay was completely different. Sadia begins her essay directly and gets straight to the point while Rifat starts sort of light-heartedly by mentioning how he is drinking coffee while writing. Anonymous also start off by getting right to the point but unlike Sadia, they don’t immediately mention the source. Instead, they speak on their topic then proceed to get into the sources they used to collect all their information. All the essays have a different feeling to them. Rifat’s essay seems more personal and it’s more interesting to read because of that. While Sadia never really spoke of anything besides the sources which I guess is due to the assignment she received. Anonymous essay feels harsher and more critical than the others which shows how passionate they are about the topic of mental health. Another thing that stood out to me was the way each person organized their essay. Sadia’s and Rifat’s are similar in the way they separated their writing into categories and Anonymous did not. The difference in the way they used sources was also interesting to see. Sadia’s sources are about the same topic but are targeting different groups of people such as parents, economists, religious people. Rifat has used his personal ideas as a source and Anonymous’ sources have similar audiences like people who suffer from mental illnesses and people who work in the medical field. Overall all three of them did great with the essays. They did what was required whilst keeping it interesting for the people who would be reading the essay. All three writers made good choices for how they would approach the essay and all three made their points clear for their audiences.
Each of these essays approached their topic differently. The way they formatted their essays differed, but they were sure to include all of the parts necessary for a rhetorical analysis. Sadia Muthana lists out her rhetorical situations; it is clear where she writes about the audience, the purpose, the tone, etc. At the same time she compares her sources, she connects two sources in the same paragraph. Rifat is similar to Sadia in the way that he writes out his sections. However, Rifat Rodik chooses to start his article by including something personal, his coffee. He analyzes his past works and compares them to his present writings, again with personal commentary. He ends it off by telling his audience the reason for writing his article the way he did; he wanted his readers to have a clear sense of what he was writing about. Lastly, the anonymous essay is arranged in a traditional sense, the way that most students learn to write their essays. Anonymous does not break it up or section it into different categories. He explained more about his topic because he didn’t limit it to sections. All three authors make effective rhetoric choices. Muthana and Rodik’s essays will be easier to read because they clearly state their rhetorical situations. Anonymous also has a clear essay, but his essay format is more common when writing essays.
The three rhetorical analysis sample essays all share both similarities and differences. The first two essays, Sadia and Rifat, organize their essay by category and label what they go over. Sadia dives straight into her topic by going into each article and what it’s about. She takes turns going over each article for every category such as purpose, audience, etc. Rifat does this a little differently, by addressing each category for one article, then going onto the next article. Both still follow a similar style by breaking the essay down which makes it easier to track it and understand. The anonymous article organizes it in a regular essay format which is what most of us are familiar with from high school, by putting an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. I believe the authors choose to organize their essays this way in order to better deliver the analysis of their sources. Each of them does a great job in their own way with their organization. In my opinion, Sadia and Rifat did the best job in making effective rhetorical choices in their organization. Since it is an analysis essay, I feel as though putting it in a categorical format just like Sadia and Rifat allows the audience to understand the sources much better. For example, if someone were to read Sadia’s essay all they would need to do is go under the “Purpose” section to understand the purpose of each article, while when reading the anonymous essay the reader would have to track down the purpose. Although everyone did a great job, I believe Sadia and Rifat in particular did an outstanding job in their organization, and I will definitely take some inspiration from them.
In Sadia’s paper, she section her paper into 5 different parts. Rhetorical Situation, purpose, audience, genre, and stance. I feel like the author choose to organize their writing this way is to make it clear and easy to understand their writing. While, Riat discussed more about their experience on writing. The author creates a list to describe their experience in writing their first and second essay for the class. The anonymous writer first starts off by introducing the topic. Then going onto the research about the topic. I believe that the anonymous writer had the most effective rhetorical choice because they when into further detail into each source.
The main difference between Sadia and Rifat’s essays and the anonymous essay is that the first two are much more personal, explaining how the author has come to build their writing style or “theory of writing.” Both Sadia and Rifat begin by establishing a setting in which they write and consider that to be an important part of their theory and process; however, their approach to answering the same question is quite different. Sadia’s story is embedded with personal stories, and while Rifat does somewhat the same, Sadia’s essay seems to be more “in the moment.” Their essay flows smoothly from one moment to another: they go to the past, then bring it back to the present, then back once more to recall a memory that is applicable to the situation being addressed. They also use a lot of imagery with the descriptions of “the fresh air, sunrise, the sound of birds” and such. All this helps to support the conclusion that what their values in their writing most is flexibility over rigidity. Rifat’s essay, on the other hand, seems more logical despite reaching many of the same ideas as Sadia. This is due to the fact that Rifat structures their essay into sections that begin with an introduction or main point followed by examples and citations. This supports their point about the importance of decision-making/planning in their writing. The essay from anonymous seems to be a sort of middle-ground between Sadia and Rifat’s styles. It establishes the idea that stigma on mental illness is a result of lack of knowledge and builds the essay by comparing three organizations on the information they present and how they deliver it. This creates a very informative and concise piece.
While reading all three of these papers I noticed a huge difference from how Sadia and Rifat began their papers then how the anonymous person did. Although all three papers seem personal to each writer, you can see how Sadia included personal experiences like how they likes waking up early and feeling the sunlight and hearing the birds because that’s the atmosphere they’re comfortable with. While Rifat does explain how they kind of have a routine, drinking coffee whenever they write, they answer differently. They let us know their routine by giving examples which allows multiple audiences to understand his thought process. These two papers were helpful because it let me understand that I also have my own routine when writing and if I take that into account, I too will improve. The final anonymous paper took all of this into play. They showed us their writing style/genre right from the beginning and following through to the end while informing us at the same time. What I like most about the final paper is that it isn’t repetitive, they always elaborate and make everything clear to their audience. All three papers were great as well as helpful.
What’s notable is how varied the approach is for these three writers, particularly when it comes to formatting. Sadia provides direct headings to separate their specific pieces of rhetorical analysis based upon the type of rhetorical analysis. This is opposed to grouping up their writing based upon the source. Anonymous’ piece opts to use a more fluid approach, opting to create a piece more likened to an analytical / argumentative essay. Rifat’s is the most unique of the three, taking a significantly more personal slant to the work while also providing a rhetorical analysis view with their articles.
Opting to use a more informal, personal slant for this piece may be less effective, as it detracts from the attempt to provide an untarnished rhetorical viewpoint of the four articles (the assignment provided). Using a more formal way of writing may be more effective, while also providing the reader an easier time to understand the rhetoric being highlighted.
Sadia’s and Anonymous’s essays were both similar in terms of structure. They would have separating paragraphs that contain individual thoughts. However, Rifat’s essay contained very explicit sectioning with the use of titles. Sadia and Anonymous most likely chose this way of organizing in order to keep their essays structured as well as straightforward because there is a flow that is present by doing this. Rifat utilized their way of organizing as it is gives off a more informative vibe. They would place questions as their title and use the paragraphs inside the section to answer it in detail. Personally, I do not think Rifat’s style is the most beneficial way on writing a rhetorical analysis. Rifat uses it in order to speak more about themselves than analyzing their focus. Sadia’s and Anonymous’s essays were able to break it into sections in forms of paragraphs and let the central idea of each paragraph flow and shift focus into the next by utilizing this form of organization.
All three of these essays break down the rhetorical analysis into parts and then cover the sources in these parts instead of presenting the reader with a separate section of rhetorical analysis for each source. In Sadia’s essay the author labels each part of rhetorical analysis and along with analyzing each source, the author also compares the articles to each other. Anonymous has a similar way of writing, however, the author chose not to separate the rhetorical analysis clearly and instead wrote it as one would write a more simplistic essay. The author did cover each source and analyzed them as well as comparing each, but it was hard to read and follow. The essay felt partially disorganized and leaves the reader feeling as if something more needs to be said. Rifat used a similar format to Sadia as they both used headers to break their analysis into separate parts in which the reader is able to refer back to, but Rifat included a part to introduce readers to their topic as well as utilized bullet points to make each section more easy to read and digest. I feel that Sadia and Rifat both had a more impactful rhetorical analysis than Anonymous did due to the fact that the organization of their essays was more clearly defined and understandable.
These articles are organized somewhat differently; in Sadia, the author believes that writing is almost like a ritual and that in order to practice the ritual of writing, one must create the right atmosphere for it in order to get better at writing. But in Rifat and Anonymous the authors hold a similar view; they both believe that writing is an ongoing cumulative learning process, and that to be successful at writing means expanding it from your initial perspective. In Sadia, the author believes that creating an aesthetically pleasing atmosphere helps to reduce or completely eliminate any resistance to starting the work of writing. In Rifat and Anonymous, the authors found it easier to continue writing through an ever-expanding approach that helped them to flow their ideas throughout the writing process. I think these authors made effective rhetorical choices in terms of organization because whether it was creating a flexible writing mindset based on a comfortable environment and identifying a basic writing structure to expand on ideas in an organized way, these approaches were based on creating more seamless writing.
The difference between these three articles is that in the Sadia article, the author argues that Producing a good piece of writing is a matter of creating a good environment in which you are comfortable. And the authors of the latter two articles believe that the continuous accumulation of writing experience is very important for writing a good article. In the Sadia article, the author argues that an aesthetically pleasing atmosphere can help reduce one’s anxiety when writing. In both the Rifat and Anonymous articles, the authors argue that their own experience with writing over time, such as their understanding of genre and rhetorical elements, have helped them discover more comfortable and easy ways to succeed in their writing. I think these authors made effective rhetorical choices in their organization because either maintaining a flexible writing mind or having a better understanding of rhetorical elements could have greatly improved their writing strategies.
The difference between the three source based essays seems to be the format in which they are written. In writing about consumerism, Sadia separates the different parts of her rhetorical analysis in her essay and uses subheadings to make it clear. However, there is no introduction used introducing the topic to the readers. Sadia compares the different sources throughout her essay, and makes a connection at the end. The anonymous essay used statistics in an unclear organization. Similarly to Sadia, Rifat organizes the essay in a clear manner using subheadings. However, he separates the different sections by source. Rifat does include a general introduction however, which helps to introduce the topic more smoothly. In the essay written by Anonymous, the rhetorical analysis is done more indirectly than Sadia and Rifat. This organization made it harder to follow. When it comes to rhetorical choices being effective or not, I think Anonymous’ rhetorical choice to write indirectly was ineffective. Sadia and Rifat’s choices to organize their essay in a way that clearly highlighted each aspect of their rhetorical analyses were effective.
The differences between all three articles are the different strategies of writing being used. Rifat’s essay lacks the use of the author, genre, audience, purpose, and stance and focuses more on self. While Sadia’s article was separated into segments contributing to the rhetorical analysis such as rhetorical Situation, genre, the audience, the stance, and the purpose. The anonymous writer’s essay didn’t lack rhetorical analysis, but was very unorganized with his placement of information and kept on adding too much information. The authors choose to organize their essays this way because their way makes them comfortable to get their point across. I think Sadia’s essay was an organized effective rhetorical choice. I believe Rifat’s essay was an ineffective rhetorical choice by talking more about himself instead of the author. And I believe the anonymous essay was effective because of evidence that is pulled out and explained.
After reading each article, the difference is seen through writing styles in format. In Sadia’s essay, she states the writing piece has to be straightforward with a consistent rhythm. Sadia enforces her believed writing style through her direct headings with the separating of paragraphs. Rifat similarly does the same, she organizes her essay through small paragraphs and headings but does mix in more thoughts in one paragraph unlike Sadia with her small paragraphs. Anonymous’ writing approach is very different in the way that they separate their paragraphs but keep their thoughts collected in one full paragraph, unlike Sadia. I think Sadia chose to organize her essay through subparagraph because of her need to keep aesthetic at the top, with Sadia’s format, the reader can straightforwardly find any topic they are looking for. Rifat’s explanation for the organization has been led by her belief in getting her point to flow easily without the distraction of subcategories and such. Anonymous’ idea for the organization is similar to Rifat’s idea to keep ideas flowing without needing to keep the aesthetic of such. I think Rifat and Sadia’s rhetorical analysis was effective because each element for analysis was present in their essay and was easily found through the subtitles. Anonymous’s rhetorical analysis was ineffective because not all elements were found in their essay and the organization lacked much for the reader.
The differences between these three source-based essays are the various types of strategies the writers use to express their format style. Different writers have various writing formats to organize their thoughts for a source-based essay. In this case, Sadia’s essay contains several points regarding her rhetorical essay to make it clear and specific. Rifat’s essay refers to a clear manner regarding his point of view to the audience and provides experiences when writing and organizing a paper. The anonymous’s essay contributes a perspective of an unclear analysis and doesn’t persuade the audience with enough information. These three authors chose this type of organization writing format to express the point of their style. Sadia and Rifat’s types of organization describe each point in detail and provide clear evidence and sources, so I believe they’re both effective. On the other hand, the anonymous’ essay contains enough information but unclear evidence of his writing format and unreliable sources. So, it’s an ineffective choice.
These three source-based essays are distinctively different from each other due to how they are formatted. Unlike the anonymous essay, Sadias and Rifats writing style have some similarities in the way they divided their rhetorical analysis into separate categories. Sadias organization is precise and effective as she labeled each part of the analysis such as author, tone, genre etc. Her essay was also the easiest to understand out of the three as she seamlessly described and established the relationship between all of the sources. Though Rifats used a similar structure as Sadia, his essay took more of a personal approach as they delved into their own experience with writing. Rifats concludes his essay by stating that his reasoning behind organizing his essay this way was for the readers benefit. However, I would argue that his essay was harder to read because of how personal it was; unlike Sadias which strictly focused on the sources. The anonymous essay was the most different among the three since it stuck to traditional essay formatting. The structure this essay used would’ve been a better fit for an argumentative essay rather than analytical. I preferred reading Sadias and the Anonymous essay in terms of how engaging they were but in terms of organization Rifats and Sadias are the better options. When writing an analytical essay it is better to use categories to make it easier for both the writer and the readers.