Rhetorical Methods

Apologies! Your web browser lacks required capabilities. Please consider upgrading it or switching to a more modern web browser.

Initializing. Please wait…

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/5qHTgL7.png" title="source: imgur.com" /> <img src="http://i.imgur.com/bdQnD0n.png" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Hello, thanks for playing this game! This Twine game is meant to help you think about rhetorical methodology in ways that will be beneficial for your paper. Your rhetorical analysis concerns the artifact you're about to analyze. This game's going to help you take a page or two of notes about your artifact. Don't worry about starting a document. We've created a downloadable one for you. You can get it then return to this game by pressing the BACK button on your browser. Here's the <a href="http://www.dwrl.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Rhetorical-Methods-Worksheet.docx ">Word Doc</a> that'll help you take your notes. There are only three parts to this game. You won't play through all of it though. Look at the document you just downloaded. You can get an idea for which sections you like by perusing it. You should do all of the first part, and then choose which sections to do in the second and third parts. After you've finished taking your notes you can even delete the sections you didn't need before saving and printing. Let's get started! 1. Ask some [[preliminary questions]] about my artifact. 2. Interrogate [[the reasons]] in the artifact. 3. Interrogate [[the evidence]] in the artifact.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/M7hT2HJ.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Left" STYLE="Padding:10px;" /> Asking preliminary questions about one's chosen rhetorical artifact is one of the most important steps people forget to take. Too often a rhetorician will use an artifact, but not analyze their reasons for using it. By asking these questions about your artifact, you'll help to situate your work firmly into an academic conversation. So, to begin, think about your artifact. What is it? You might say, "It's a speech." But what if your reader would call it a VIDEO? That would change one's understanding of the artifact by quite a lot. A video of a speech would have camera angles that need to be thought about, it would have recording elements that would need to be described, etc. Try it this way: start with what your reader would say your artifact is, and then add what it "really" is to the end. So, with the example above, it would look like this: "A video of a speech at a demonstration." Preliminary Q1: What is your artifact? Write your answer Under Preliminary Q1, then continue with [[more preliminary questions]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/y81Z0wy.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Reasons are an internal thing. They're a product of our minds. We may search the world to find the right reason to be on time for class. But it's only when we dig deep to find a reason that we leave so we can get there as fast as we can. What we'll be investigating in this part is the EXPRESSION of the mental processes that people have made before they attempt to persuade an audience. Sometimes that expression is the product of many hours of thoughtful deliberation; but sometimes it happens in the blink of an eye. There are three types of reasons. Because your paper is only four to seven pages, you'll probably focus on only one or two. Read the descriptions below and choose which reasons seem best suited for your artifact. 1. [[Reasons to trust]] focus on the character of the speaker. If your artifact mainly concerns the rhetor, then consider choosing this set of questions. 2. [[Reasons to feel]] focus on symbols and how they evoke emotional responses. If your artifact concerns an emotional reaction of some sort, consider choosing this set of questions. 3. [[Reasons to believe]] analyze the logic of an argument. If a rhetor is making a clear argument (even if to you it is illogical), then consider choosing this set of questions.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/dqAyQgU.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Evidence takes many forms. Like [[the reasons]], no need to go through each section. Simply read the descriptions to understand which sorts of evidence seem right for your artifact. Follow the appropriate links. 1. Citing [[authority]] involves quoting, paraphrasing, or channeling the expertise of someone else. If your artifact's reasons rely on the expertise of others to make its point, then peruse this section. 2. Good [[testimony]] expresses to others the witnessing of an event. The witness (person, video, etc.) need not be expert. If your artifact makes witness of something, then peruse this section. 3. An [[example]] is a single instance of something that can help explain an assertion. If your artifact uses a specific instance to illustrate a larger point, then peruse this section. 4. A [[sign]] is some indication that something is happening, or that an assertion is true. If your artifact attempts to warn people of possible outcomes or that a problem exists, then peruse this section. 5. A [[maxim]] is a saying or slogan that conveys cultural truisms. If your artifact uses a pithy statement to makes its point, then peruse this section. 6. A [[fable]] characterizes something as something that it is not, usually to convey a moral. If your artifact uses a short story to make a moral point, then peruse this section. If you want to analyze something other than the evidence, then go back to the [[Start]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/kBzqvnE.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Although reasons to trust are directed at an audience, they're actually about the rhetor, the person who is persuading. When analyzing reasons to trust, you're asking who the rhetor is, why the rhetor is credible, and how this information is conveyed to an audience. That'll be the focus, so let's start. Trust Q1: How does the audience know the rhetor? This is a complex question. The rhetor might be credible, but how is credibility conveyed? Does a rhetor say something about their qualifications? Do they say nothing? Does the rhetor state who they are, or rely on previous recognition? Write your answers under Trust Q1, get quotes from your artifact. When you're finished, answer [[another question about trust]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/FT50BSY.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Reasons to feel, unlike reasons to trust, focus on the audience. When tracking reasons to feel, what you are looking for is WHAT the rhetor is using to make people feel, HOW a rhetor uses them to motivate an audience's feelings, and WHY it is or isn't working. There are three broad categories of "WHAT" rhetors might use that we will investigate in this section: images, values, and language. By focusing on them, you can better understand what people are being asked to feel in a particular moment, and you can divine whether or not it is best to encourage people to feel as such. You may decide to look into all three sub-categories. However, you may only need to analyze one or two of them. Read the descriptions below to choose which best fit your artifact. 1. Analyzing [[images and feeling]] focuses on how imagery can be used to incite feeling in an audience. 2. Analyzing [[feelings and values]] focuses on "God Terms," or words that have no referent yet immense cultural meaning. 3. Analyzing [[Honorific and Pejorative Language]] focuses attention on how we use labels to effectively invoke meaning in an audience.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/HNBgxwcl.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Reasons to believe are called so because they want you to believe something based upon the validity of something else. They can be challenging to analyze. This is true for several reasons. First, reasons to believe are also called "logical proofs," but a lot of them we come across simply aren't logical. The argument that if we legalize GAY marriage then we legalize ALL all marriage, is illogical. How are "gay" and "all" synonymous with each other? Second, arguing with feeling is often quite logical. Barak Obama's 2008 campaign included images and words which fall under the heading of "reasons to feel": HOPE and CHANGE. But the choice to use them is quite logical when you remember that many people were saying those very words at the time. Third, although reasons to believe are taught in an ordered manner, actual reasons to believe are often jumbled and confused. Take this example: ALL MEN ARE MORTAL; THEREFORE, SOCRATES WILL DIE. This example is illogical. Here's how it should look. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. There are three parts to a reason to believe: a proof, a conclusion, and an assumption. In the example above, the first part is the proof, the second is the assumption, and the third is the conclusion. In this section you will learn to identify all three, even if sometimes the assumption goes unstated. Let's start by [[identifying the proof]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/S35apN7.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="Padding:10px;"/> You've identified your rhetorical artifact. But your artifact is attached to some controversy or cause. Preliminary Q2: To what controversy is your artifact attached? I know this sounds easy, but think for a moment. A photo of protests in Baltimore might be attached to housing conditions in the area, but it might be attached to the controversial death of Freddy Grey, or to the way that media represent protests, or many other things. So, what is the controversy? How is your artifact representative of the controversy? Write your answers under Preliminary Q2. When finished, continue to the [[next preliminary question]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/zSc165J.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> You've identified your artifact and controversy, and the position your artifact takes. There's one more question to ask, and it's important. Preliminary Q4: Does the rhetorical artifact effectively advocate its position to its intended audience? How do you feel about this rhetorical artifact in relation to the controversy and its apparent position? Good, mostly good, really bad, ambivalent, etc? In other words, is this thing doing a good job at what it seems to want to do? You as a person may disagree with a particular side of a controversy, and yet think that the rhetorical appeals that it uses are brilliantly crafted. You might align yourself with a particular cause, and yet abhor the tactics they are willing to use to get what they want. Members of an audience will be thinking and feeling similar things, depending on their position to a controversy. Write your answers under Preliminary Q4. Be specific about why you have them. Take your time. After, analyze [[the reasons]] or go back to the [[Start]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/QTf4txN.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="Padding:10px;"/> Alright, you know what your artifact is, and how it relates to a controversy. But rhetorical artifacts, due to their nature, represent a position to a controversy. Preliminary Q3: What position does your artifact take? Don't simply answer PRO or CON. Does your artifact sympathize with one side of a controversy? Does it agitate sentiment against one side? The point is to realize that positions regarding a controversy are rarely so easy as FOR or AGAINST. Think about what your artifact says about the controversy. Make sure to back up your response. Write your answer under Preliminary Q3, then answer the [[last preliminary question]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/kBzqvnE.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Trust Q2: How does the rhetor speak? No kidding. Care about tone when answering this question. Is it wise or rash, bold or careless? Think about whether or not the rhetor's message is a planned thing (like a speech) or extemporaneous (like a reaction at a rally). Decide if the tone and words are appropriate for the situation. What makes the message powerful, even if some people might object to it? Write your answers under Trust Q2, get quotes, then answer the [[next trust question]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/kBzqvnE.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> You've identified the rhetor, and how appropriateness (or inappropriateness) helps make the message in your rhetorical artifact powerful. Trust Q3: How does the rhetor connect with the audience? Is the rhetor a member of the community? Is the rhetor someone who comes from outside the community, but accepted regardless? Is the rhetor rejected by the community, regardless of affiliation? Thinking about how the rhetor is related to the community helps to understand why the language that is used is powerful, and why the rhetor is able to persuade effectively (or not). Write your answers under Trust Q3. Get quotes. Then answer the last question about [[trust and goodwill]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/kBzqvnE.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> You've identified the rhetor, a sense of their appropriateness, and their connection to the audience. There's one more question to ask, though. Trust Q4: Does the rhetor establish goodwill with their audience? Goodwill is difficult to locate, because it's different from simple agreement. People might agree because they're pandering. This isn't goodwill. Goodwill sometimes requires telling people what they don't want to hear. When that happens, though, it's often couched in a particular manner. Does the rhetor show compassion? Has the rhetor considered all sides of an argument? How can you tell? Write your answers under Trust Q4. After, you can go back to the [[Start]], go back to [[the reasons]], or move to [[the evidence]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/FT50BSY.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Images are important to contemplate for a few reasons. First, they communicate a lot of information immediately. That's why, even if they're wrong, people say that "A picture's worth a thousand words." Second, there's a lot that goes into an image. Like it or not, since images communicate quickly, people are less likely to think about them critically. That is, people will react to an image without asking if they SHOULD react to it, or even react to it in the way they do. But third, and this is the weird one, images don't have to be stimulated by sight. Words can "conjure up" images. Even the word "red" can invoke the image of the color in your mind. Imagery Q1: What is used to create imagery in your artifact? Be specific when answering this question. If it's an image, then what about the image is making people feel? If it's a video, then what action is being captured? If it's wording, then which words and what feeling? Write your answers under Imagery Q1, then answer another [[question about imagery]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/r5dd6Zq.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Analyzing values can be difficult. There's a very clear reason for this: You, like everyone else, carry values within you. Values aren't palpable. You can't touch them, or or find them, or lay your hand on them. But you can feel them, and that's the point. When you feel your core values expressed, they are perceived by you as TRUTH, as irrefutable, honest, and genuine. When you feel something antithetical to your core values expressed, you perceive them as LIES, as dangerous, false thinking that should be shouted down immediately. Rhetorical analysis requires you to account for both and more. The next few steps will help you sort out how a rhetor is expressing values. There are three things to care about here: the words used, how they are explained, and what else they might mean. We'll take each in turn, and start with [[values and words]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/FT50BSY.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Imagery Q2: Why is the imagery in your artifact used? Care about a couple of issues when answering this question. First, what effect will it carry with an audience? Is it obvious at first glance? Does its meaning change after looking at it a while? Second, who's point of view is being presented in the imagery? If it's an image, then it might the the point of view of the camera, or the creator, or someone who usually receives little representation. It might be the PoV of the establishment. Write your answers under Imagery Q2, then answer the [[last question about imagery]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/FT50BSY.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Imagery Q3: Is the imagery effective and appropriate? The imagery used most likely invokes a feeling. However, just because imagery is inviting a person to feel, does that mean the rhetor is right to use it for that purpose? What's in it for the rhetor to use the imagery? Can the imagery be interpreted differently? SHOULD it be interpreted differently? Write your answers under Imagery Q3. When you have finished, you can go back to [[the reasons]], analyze other [[Reasons to feel]], begin looking at [[the evidence]], or go back to the [[Start]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/r5dd6Zq.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Values Q1: Which words are used to convey values in your artifact? Start broadly. You'll notice that quite often a value word has no referent, or it has an odd referent once analyzed. When it has no referent, a rhetor often simply uses the word, then lets the audience provide the meaning in their minds. Take "freedom" for example. Freedom has meant anything from "release from jail" to "the ability to act as one wants" to audience members. In some contexts it's even meant "the right to oppress others"! In the example to the right, the referent is "The University of Texas at Austin". There is a referent, yes, but it isn't a conventional one. But that's how value words work. They make links between words and feelings without the need to make an argument. So, which words are used in your artifact to convey values? Here are some other popular ones: law, liberty, democracy, union, life, choice, responsibility, and love. Write your answers under Values Q1, then answer a question about [[feelings and expression]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/r5dd6Zq.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Values Q2: What feeling is being expressed by using the value words you identified? Try to answer this question without using the word or words you identified in the last step. It'll be difficult, but do it anyway. The word is meant to invoke a feeling, so find words for that feeling other than those used by the rhetor. If the word is "freedom," then are people meant to feel exultant? Are they meant to feel ecstatic? Are they actually meant to feel a sense of obligation, even though one meaning of freedom is "a release from obligation"? Put language to the feeling that is meant to be invoked by using the value words. Write you answers under Values Q2, then answer the last question about [[feelings and meaning]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/r5dd6Zq.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Values Q3: WHY is the audience encouraged to feel as such? Think about what the rhetor or their cause stands to gain by encouraging these feelings by using these words. Why use this tactic, and not another? There are reasons for WHY the audience is being addressed as it is. Find a way to express this very important WHY. Doing so allows you to think about the motivations of the rhetor, and the ethics of motivating the audience in this fashion. Articulating the WHY allows you to describe these motivations as better or worse than another means of encouragement. Write your answer under Values Q3. After you can either go back to the [[Start]], move onto [[Honorific and Pejorative Language]], or begin evaluating [[the evidence]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Mf1z5PD.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /> Analyzing issues regarding honorific and pejorative language should help focus attention on the implications of using certain words in certain situations. The right word can start a movement, the wrong one a riot. What's more, either can happen in the blink of an eye. What was started, and why, is what one can discover. Honorific and Pejorative Q1: What are the adjectives, adverbs, and verbs used in your artifact? Honorific and pejorative language is used to label something as good or bad. That's why you should look for adjectives, adverbs and verbs. These are words that help to label things. Is a partnership described as "long-standing" or as "rocky"? Did a meeting "go smoothly" or "run late"? Is a movement "gaining momentum" or "stuck in the mud"? Is a person "renowned" or "reviled"? Write your answers under Honorific and Pejorative Q1. Then move onto the [[next honorific and pejorative language]] question.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Mf1z5PD.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /> Honorific and Pejorative Q2: Who or what is being honored, or maligned? An easy way to answer this question is to separate your list of adjectives, adverbs, and verbs, into the categories "honorific" and "pejorative". But remember that a rhetor might use irony or sarcasm. Is the rhetor sincere about what they say? Write your answers under Honorific and Pejorative Q2. After, answer the [[third question about honorific and pejorative language]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Mf1z5PD.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" /> Honorific and Pejorative Q3: What effect does honoring or maligning something have on the audience? WHO OR WHAT ELSE is aligned with what the rhetor honors? WHO OR WHAT ELSE is aligned with what the rhetor maligns? Does the rhetor do this for a reason? Does the rhetor want to align themselves with a particular side of a controversy, and against another? With a person, and against another? How might these decisions affect what an audience will feel? Will they agree with the choices, or dislike them? What's the effect of deciding to use honorific and pejorative language? You garner quite a lot by looking at adjectives, adverbs, and verbs. Write what effect using this language has on an audience under Honorific and Pejorative Q3. After, you can go back to the [[Start]], go back to [[the reasons]], or move forward to [[the evidence]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/HNBgxwcl.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> A conclusion in a reason to believe is the very thing the audience is invited to BELIEVE. It's the rhetor's point, the reason to state the proof, and what a rhetor wants to drive home to the audience. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. The last part of the example, "Therefore Socrates is mortal," is the conclusion. It's the point. It's the reason for bringing up the facts that everyone is mortal and that Socrates is part of "everyone". Reason to Believe Q2: What is the conclusion in your artifact? What is the point the rhetor wishes to make? After identifying the conclusion, decide if it meshes well with the proof. That is, can you think of other conclusions based solely upon the proof? Would other proofs also lead to this conclusion? What might some of them be? Write your answers under Identify the Conclusion. After, move onto [[identifying the assumption]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/HNBgxwcl.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> A proof is a GENERAL statement of fact. It is a statement that is assumed or regarded to be TRUE, as irrefutable. It is true across all boundaries. The proof is also one thing that helps to support a conclusion. Here's our example. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. The proof in our example is "All men are mortal." It's a statement of fact. It's true across all boundaries, even its innate sexism (i.e., All HUMANS are mortal). In the very moment it's spoken, it garners universal approval. Reason to Believe Q1: What is the proof in your artifact? What is the general statement of truth? Once you've identified the proof, ask if it's reasonable. Is it a statement of opinion masquerading as a statement of fact? Is it only irrefutable in the eyes of people who will already agree with the rhetor? Does the proof hold up to scrutiny? Write your answers under Identify the Proof, then [[identify the conclusion]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/HNBgxwcl.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> An assumption is a SPECIFIC statement of truth that mirror's the proof, or the GENERAL statement of truth. It links the proof to the conclusion. If the conclusion is correct for a general situation, then it is correct for the specific situtation that mirrors the general. It's often hard to find. Why? Simple: it's often unstated. Let's look at the example once more. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal. "Socrates is a man" is the assumption in the example, the thing people know for a fact so quickly there's no need to speak it. In your artifact the rhetor might state it like it is above; but then again maybe not. If not you'll have to articulate the assumption yourself. Reason to Believe Q3: What is the assumption in your artifact? What is the SPECIFIC statement of truth? After you've identified the assumption, think about if it was stated or not. The benefit of leaving an assumption unstated for a rhetor is that members of the audience can and do supply their own assumptions. In other words, audience members supply their own reasons to support a rhetor's conclusion. Think about what other assumptions might be at play in the artifact, and make them part of your answer. Write your answers under Identify the Assumption. Then either go back to the [[Start]] or analyze [[the evidence]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Ufl1Mov.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Authorities are experts in their fields. To the rhetor, their work is worth knowing and quoting. Quite often when you find someone using authoritative evidence, they are quoting assertions or conclusions that the authority has made in the past. Authority Q1: Who it the authority, and what is the evidence? Separate these from the reason that the rhetor is giving for its importance. What, precisely, is the authoritative evidence? Does the rhetor quote the authority, or offer conclusions? Write your answer under Authority Q1, then [[explain what authority]] is doing.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/7H6VD8L.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Testimony is like authority in that both rely on what someone has said. Testimony differs from authority in that testimony does not rely on the privilege of expertise. What is special about testimony isn't the person, it's the event. Testimony Q1: What is the audience being asked to witness? Is it an event or a speech? Is it a crime? Is it a better course of action? Name what the testimony is pointing to. Write your answer under Testimony Q1, then [[explain what testimony]] is doing.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Nc2OtM5.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> An example is a single instance of something that a rhetor uses to bring up issues or solutions that surround a controversy. A rhetor can make an example out of anything, though, in order to illustrate their point. What's more, an example does not have to be something that actually exists in order to be effective; hypothetical examples work well, too. Example Q1: What, precisely, is the example? Is it a person, or a place, or a story, or an image? Identify the example. Write you answer under Testimony Q1, then [[explain what the example]] is doing.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/FBjX5oY.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> A sign is an indicator that something exists. But, the actual sign could be almost anything. Fossils are signs that dinosaurs once roamed the earth, smoke is a sign that there is a fire, and professors prattling on about deadlines is a sign that the end of the semester is on the horizon. That's how signs work: they tell us about the past, present, and future. Sign Q1: What, precisely, is the sign? Is it something obvious, like a placard, a message, or someone calling it a sign in their speech? Or is it more nuanced, like a hand gesture that means school pride, identity and community? Write your answer under Sign Q1, then [[explain what the sign]] is doing.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/1V0I0iX.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> A maxim is a short statement that conveys a cultural truth. That cultural truth is often called "common sense" to those who agree with it. People think of them as rules to live by. Maxim Q1: What is the maxim? Is it a proverb like "A stitch in time saves nine"? Is it a slogan like "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work"? What is the maxim in the artifact? Write your answer under Maxim Q1, then [[explain what the maxim]] is doing.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/dfQql3N.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Fables capture cultural wisdom; but instead of sloganizing that wisdom, a fable will narrate it. Fables often use animals to capture a child's attention, but they can also be stories that politicians tell to to gain something from their constituents. What makes a fable meaningful is that they are 1) simple, 2) easy to tell, and 3) moralistic. Fable Q1: What is the fable in your artifact? What is the short story with a moral point? Does it have a name? If not, then does it follow a story with a similar moral? Write your answer under Fable Q1, then [[explain what the fable]] is doing.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Ufl1Mov.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Authority Q2: What is the authoritative evidence doing to persuade the audience? Is the authority a good one to cite, is the evidence irrefutable? Are they a bad one to cite, and does the opposition have evidence of their own? Does choosing this piece of authoritative evidence cause dissonance or harmony? Write your answers under Authority Q2: Next, explain why the [[authority is needed]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Ufl1Mov.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Authority Q3: What issues are addressed by citing this particular authority? The existence of authoritative evidence proves that something needs to be addressed expertly, at least to the rhetor. It might be there to mollify some part of the audience. It might exist to speak directly to a particular concern. Perhaps it's needed to introduce a salient issue that isn't getting attention, or a solution no one has understood until now. Write your answer under Authority Q3. After, you can go back to the [[Start]], or analyze another piece of [[the evidence]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Nc2OtM5.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Example Q3: Why THIS example? What is it about the example that makes it so important? What need does it service? Does it link the rhetor's reason to the argument, or is it what prompted the rhetor to want to persuade an audience to begin with? Is it the most recent example of something that occurred, and will it invoke other examples without even mentioning them? Write your answer under Example Q3. When you're finished, either go back to the [[Start]], or analyze another piece of [[the evidence]] in your rhetorical artifact.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/FBjX5oY.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Sign Q3: Why THIS sign, and not another? When answering this question, think about how the rhetor uses the sign to make the argument. The rhetor wishes the audience to believe that the sign is an indicator of what the rhetor claims. It has been chosen from many other signs. What might they be, and why does the rhetor use this one? Write your answer under Sign Q3. Then go back to the [[Start]], analyze another piece of [[the evidence]] in your rhetorical artifact.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/1V0I0iX.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Maxim Q3: Why THIS maxim, and not some other? Maxims, slogans, and the like, convey some cultural truth. But culture's often have many maxims. Why was this one chosen? How does it prove what the rhetor claims? Write your answer under Maxim Q3, then either go back to the [[Start]], analyze another piece of [[the evidence]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/dfQql3N.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Fable Q3: Why THIS fable, and not some other? The last question asks you to think about why the fable is needed. Think about that for a moment. Why would a rhetor use a fable rather than a piece of authoritative evidence, or a slogan? Then ask why it must be this story? Is it one that is recent? Does it fit with the lives of the people in the audience? What is it about this story that makes it necessary to use? Write your answer under Fable Q3. Next, either go back to the [[Start]], or analyze another piece of [[the evidence]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/7H6VD8L.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Testimony Q2: How does the testimony support your rhetorical artifact's point of view? Is it supporting some reason to do what the rhetor wants? Is it raising the esteem of the rhetor because they choose to use it? Is it direct testimony, or is it secondhand? Think about how this testimony helps to make the argument stronger. Write your answers under Testimony Q2, then explain why the [[testimony is needed]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/7H6VD8L.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Testimony Q3: Why does the rhetor use this piece of testimony, and not another? When answering this question, think about whether or not some other testimony might tell a different story. Think about what that story might be, and how the rhetor's argument might have to change if it was used. This will help to understand why it was chosen over some other piece of evidence. Using that one piece of testimony might even shape the nature of the entire argument. Write your answers Under testimony Q3. When you are finished, either go back to the [[Start]], or analyze another piece of [[the evidence]] in your rhetorical artifact.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Nc2OtM5.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Example Q2: How does the example support the rhetor's argument? Does it directly supporting the reason you analyzed earlier, such as a reason to believe or a reason to feel? Does it add to the trust of the rhetor? Is it possible that the example, while supporting a reason or an argument, is also supporting the very reasons why the rhetor is facing opposition? Does it grab the audience's attention? Write your answer under Example Q2. Then explain why the [[example is needed]] for the argument to be powerful.

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/FBjX5oY.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Sign Q2: How does the sign support the rhetor's argument? Think about what the sign points to. Is it better days to come, or more hardship for people? Is it supporting a reason? Does it directly support the rhetor's assertions? Write your answer under Sign Q2, then explain why the [[sign is needed]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/1V0I0iX.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Maxim Q2: How does the maxim make the argument better? When answering this question, think about what cultural truth does it expresses. Does expressing it help to build trust? Does it prove that the rhetor is possesses cultural knowledge? Does it help to build community with the audience? Write your answer under Maxim Q2. After, explain why the [[maxim is needed]].

<img src="http://i.imgur.com/dfQql3N.jpg" title="source: imgur.com" Align="Right" STYLE="padding:10px;"/> Fable Q2: What does the fable do to support the rhetor's claims? Think about the moral it conveys. Does that sense of morality permeate your artifact? Can you see it throughout? Does it hang there awkwardly, or does the audience understand why it is being used? Write your answer under Fable Q2, then explain why the [[fable is needed]].