Questions and Topics We Can Help You To Answer:
Paper Instructions:
Detailed Description:
The final document should be between 3-6 pages in length.
(Just know.... You all are way more concerned about the document length than I am... I’m looking for you to address the issues related to the assignment, which can be done effectively at various lengths)
Goal of the assignment: To demonstrate a working knowledge of the key pillars of persuasive rhetoric. A successful submission will show how rhetoric frames argumentation. The author should be able to craft arguments using different aspects of rhetorical appeals.
How to Complete: You will select a topic from current political discourse. You have a lot of freedom to write about something interesting to you, BUT your topic should be relevant/newsworthy, should lend itself to this assignment (not all topics do!), and should clear the “who cares” bar... meaning, don’t pick a topic that is overly niche or narrowly focused. Write about something in the news, something that actually matters, etc. If you’re afraid that your topic doesn’t meet that standard, contact the prof and ask.
You will find an article about your selected topic and unwrap it in a paragraph or two. What is your topic? Why is it relevant? What are the significant issues attached to it? You’re not expected to be super deep here, you just want to give your reader a brief introduction to the subject you’ve selected.
After you’ve explained your topic, your goal is to argue FOR it using the three modes of rhetorical persuasion. Think about writing one page for each mode. It could look something like:
Page 1 – Introduction, then Section 1- Summary of the paper and background of topic. “Funding and building Dog Parks: here’s what you need to know”
Page 2- Section 2 Dog Parks and Ethos. A page or two arguing for dog parks using ethos based rhetorical appeals.

Page 3 Section 3 Dog Parks and Pathos. A Page or two arguing for dog parks using pathos based rhetorical appeals.
Page 4 Section 4 Dog Parks and Logos. A page or two arguing for dog parks using logos based rhetorical appeals.
Page 5 Conclusion. A paragraph or two explaining what the take-aways of the assignment. What does arguing from different modes of rhetoric do for us? Is each mode always appropriate for a particular topic? Was one of the modes better suited for your topic than another? Basically... make this assignment matter. Give me the substantive stuff and explain what I’m after here.
Assignment Specific Grade Information:
I grade your assignments with the A-F scale in mind. Here’s what I’m looking for in terms of emphasis:
25% - General Readability
- Complete paragraphs
- “Clean” document
- Sentence flow and grammar
- Citations (present and properly formatted in APA style)
-Assignment is formatted for easy readability
-It is clear you’ve read assignment directions (Trust me, it’s clear when you haven’t)
25% - Logic, Argument Strength, Research
-Have you selected “good” arguments in support of the topic?
-Is your analysis in the intro and conclusion sound/persuasive?
-Do you demonstrate an accurate understanding of each mode of rhetoric?
50% - Meets Assignment Directions
-Does your submission have a clear topic with a clear stance?
-Does the submission offer compelling analysis for how the topic fits it into each mode of rhetoric?
-Is the author repetitive? Does each section of the paper work? Is each section given proper focus/care? -Is there genuine effort and thought? Or... are you mailing it in?

General Rubric:
“A”s
Assignment is complete and demonstrates rigorous application and understanding of the assignment directions. Submission follows all assignment directions and does so meaningfully. Submission meets length requirements, APA style requirements, and contains few readability errors. To receive an A, the submission must incorporate interesting analysis, complete understanding of the assignment goals, and demonstrate an ability to develop concepts beyond their in-class iterations.
”B”s
Submission meets the assignment directions, is properly formatted, edited, and provides layered analysis that incorporates many elements from our classroom discussions. It is clear from this submission that effort was put into developing key ideas and synthesizing those ideas for readability and proper application. Submissions receiving B’s are good- they do what they need to do and they intelligently dissect the core ideas.
“C”s
Assignment is mostly complete, but lacks effort and rigor. Explanations/analysis are surface level and fail to meaningfully engage the assignment directions. Assignment contains several grammar and spelling errors and is not formatted for easy readability. It’s not that assignments receiving C’s are bad, but they only do the bare minimum. The submission fails to develop ideas and omits an understanding of what the assignment is aiming to accomplish.
“D”s
Assignment is missing major components from assignment directions. The submission demonstrates a lack of understanding and fails to work through those difficulties in a meaningful way. Assignment errs toward summary and away from analysis/explanation/synthesis. The submission is improperly formatted and contains numerous readability issues. D’s are probably the result of rushed and/or lazy work... maybe they approximate coverage of the assignment directions, but there is probably no there, there.
“F”s
Assignment is substantially incomplete and lacks any demonstration of rigor/engagement with the material. Explanations and analysis are absent and the submission suffers from substantial readability issues. Submission does not demonstrate an understanding of the directions and fails to work through those issues. In short, the assignment is a total bummer to read- it is excessively rushed and/or lazy and makes no effort to develop coherent positions on the course concepts.