Rhetorical_appeals

Description: The rhetorical analysis will require you to identify (a) purpos (b) audience, and (c) genre(s) of Wasted! The Story of Food Waste. Rhetorical awareness comprises including informati about authorship, stated/implied purpose, and rhetorical appeals such as logos, pathos, kairos, and ethos. Assignment: For this assignment, you will perform a rhetorical analysis that examines audience and purpose with a focus on Kairos. A rhetorical analysis is one way to pay close attention to how the documentary is pieced together. There are a number of ways to perform a rhetorical analysis. For this class, we are performing an analysis that helps us answer the question: In what ways did the documentary achieve/not achieve/partially achieve Kairos? The purpose is to help us take a close look at the audience and purpose and determining whether or not it was achieved, and how it was achieved. Use examples to support your analysis. Be sure to review the relevant terminology: rhetorical situation, audience, purpose, claim, appeals, ethos, pathos, logos, Kairos, tone, presentation. Use the rhetorical reading notes worksheet to help you write your analysis. Word Count: 2-4 paragraphs In-text citation: "In the movie Citizen Kane, the character says, 'Rosebud' (Welles)." In the film, Wasted! The Story of Food Waste, Tristram Stuart was described as "the global authority on food waste" (Chai and Kye). Works Cited entry template for a documentary. Title of Documentary. Directed by Director's First Name Last Name, Studio, Year. Directors: Anna Chai and Nari Kye Year: 2017 Studio: Neon Studio Wasted! The Story of Food Waste. Directed by Anna Chai and Nari Kye. Neon Studio. 2017. Wasted! The Story of Food Waste Documentary Discussion Q's

1. What were the key takeaways from the documentary regarding the extent of food waste globally and its impact on the environment and society? 2. The documentary highlighted various innovative solutions to combat food waste, such as recycling food scraps and utilizing "ugly" produce. Which of these solutions do you find most promising, and why? 3. The film featured renowned chefs like Dan Barber and Massimo Bottura who are leading the way in using food waste to create gourmet dishes. How can the culinary industry play a role in reducing food waste, and how might this impact food culture and awareness? 4. The documentary emphasized the importance of rethinking expiration dates and embracing "nose-to-tail" and "root-to- stem" cooking. How can these practices be incorporated into our food consumption habits? 5. The film discussed the consequences of food waste on social issues, including food insecurity. How can we address this paradox of food waste coexisting with hunger, and what initiatives or policies can help bridge this gap? 6. One of the key messages of the documentary was the need for a change in mindset and culture surrounding food consumption. How can we shift our perspectives and attitudes towards food to reduce waste? 7. The documentary also mentioned the role of governments and businesses in tackling food waste. What policies and practices can be implemented on a larger scale to address this issue? 8. Did the documentary change your perception of food waste and its impact? What actions or changes in your own life are you inspired to make after watching it? https://writingcommons.org/article/kairos-2/

 Cause/effect thinking – you argue that X has caused Y, or that X is likely to cause Y to help support your claim. Be careful with the latter – it can be difficult to predict that something “will” happen in the future.  Deductive reasoning – starting with a broad, general claim/example and using it to support a more specific point or claim  Inductive reasoning – using several specific examples or cases to make a broad generalization  Exemplification – use of many examples or a variety of evidence to support a single point  Elaboration – moving beyond just including a fact, but explaining the significance or relevance of that fact  Coherent thought – maintaining a well organized line of reasoning; not repeating ideas or jumping around Pathos: Appeal to Emotions When an author relies on pathos, it means that he or she is trying to tap into the audience’s emotions to get them to agree with the author’s claim. An author using pathetic appeals wants the audience to feel something: anger, pride, joy, rage, or happiness. For example, many of us have seen the ASPCA commercials that use photographs of injured puppies, or sad-looking kittens, and slow, depressing music to emotionally persuade their audience to donate money. Pathos-based rhetorical strategies are any strategies that get the audience to “open up” to the topic, the argument, or to the author. Emotions can make us vulnerable, and an author can use this vulnerability to get the audience to believe that his or her argument is a compelling one. Pathetic appeals might include  Expressive descriptions of people, places, or events that help the reader to feel or experience those events  Vivid imagery of people, places or events that help the reader to feel like he or she is seeing those events  Sharing personal stories that make the reader feel a connection to, or empathy for, the person being described  Using emotion-laden vocabulary as a way to put the reader into that specific emotional mindset (what is the author trying to make the audience feel? and how is he or she doing that?)  Using any information that will evoke an emotional response from the audience . This could involve making the audience feel empathy or disgust for the person/group/event being discussed, or perhaps connection to or rejection of the person/group/event being discussed. When reading a text, try to locate when the author is trying to convince the reader using emotions because, if used to excess, pathetic appeals can indicate a lack of substance or

emotional manipulation of the audience. See the links below about fallacious pathos for more information. Ethos: Appeal to Values/Trust Ethical appeals have two facets: audience values and authorial credibility/character. On the one hand, when an author makes an ethical appeal, he or she is attempting to tap into the values or ideologies that the audience holds , for example, patriotism, tradition, justice, equality, dignity for all humankind, self preservation, or other specific social, religious or philosophical values (Christian values, socialism, capitalism, feminism, etc.). These values can sometimes feel very close to emotions, but they are felt on a social level rather than only on a personal level. When an author evokes the values that the audience cares about as a way to justify or support his or her argument, we classify that as ethos. The audience will feel that the author is making an argument that is “right” (in the sense of moral “right”-ness, i.e., “My argument rests upon that values that matter to you. Therefore, you should accept my argument”). This first part of the definition of ethos, then, is focused on the audience’s values. On the other hand, this sense of referencing what is “right” in an ethical appeal connects to the other sense of ethos: the author. Ethos that is centered on the author revolves around two concepts: the credibility of the author and his or her character. Credibility of the speaker/author is determined by his or her knowledge and expertise in the subject at hand. For example, if you are learning about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, would you rather learn from a professor of physics or a cousin who took two science classes in high school thirty years ago? It is fair to say that, in general, the professor of physics would have more credibility to discuss the topic of physics. To establish his or her credibility, a n author may draw attention to who he or she is or what kinds of experience he or she has with the topic being discussed as an ethical appeal (i.e., “Because I have experience with this topic – and I know my stuff! – you should trust what I am saying about this topic”). Some authors do not have to establish their credibility because the audience already knows who they are and that they are credible. Character is another aspect of ethos, and it is different from credibility because it involves personal history and even personality traits. A person can be credible but lack character or vice versa. For example, in politics, sometimes the most experienced candidates – those who might be the most credible candidates – fail to win elections because voters do not accept their character. Politicians take pains to shape their character as leaders who have the interests of the voters at heart. The candidate who successfully proves to the voters (the audience) that he or she has the type of character that they can trust is more likely to win. Thus, ethos comes down to trust. How can the author get the audience to trust him or her so that they will accept his or her argument? How can the the author make him or herself appear as a credible speaker who embodies the character traits that the audience values? In building ethical appeals, we see authors

Rhetorical Situation 1. CONTEXT (will require brief research) a. Who is the author/what is the author’s profession/background? (This is part of Ethos or credibility of the author). b. In which source text was the reading originally published/printed/produced? c. What is the original date of publication? d. Identify one or two significant historical circumstances of the text’s production by locating current events, theories, or previous articles/studies that influenced the author’s decision to write this text or conduct this study. You are looking for how this text fits into the academic conversation happening on the topic at the time it was written. Write in complete sentences. 2. STRUCTURE AND APPEALS a. Identify how and where the author(s) employs obvious (e.g., headings, subheadings, lists, labels, bullets, etc.) or subtle structural cues (e.g., subject transitions). b. Describe the language of the text, focusing on word choice. Be sure to note any words that are repeated often. Do not just list words, but also describe the language being used in the text. Write in compete sentences. c. Identify any Logos (logical appeals) (supporting evidence, previous studies, stories, logical statements) and state their purpose. That is, state at least 2-4 key pieces of evidence that the author uses as support and state the purpose of using that piece of evidence using complete sentences. d. Identify any Pathos (emotional appeals) and state their purpose using complete sentences. 3. PURPOSE a. What is the purpose of the work (e.g., argument, narrative, commentary, etc.) and how does the author identify that purpose? Write in complete sentences; you may wish to quote evidence from the source text. b. Identify and explain the original intended audience as stated (or implied) by the author: i. Identify the pronouns that the author uses and identify to whom the pronouns refer (i.e., who is who and to whom?). ii. Identify four words or phrases that you used to identify the audience. 4. MAIN CLAIM a. State the topic (noun): b. State the main argument/claim in one complete sentence (must include an active verb):