Notes From the Pro’s : Rhetorical Analysis Edition
A select set of observations and advice from AP Lang teachers around the country (and beyond) who
read and scored the Q2 essays. Note that each person’s observations are based on reading over 1200
(some approaching 1800) essays.
On reading and understanding the prompt:
(2012) Answer/address all parts of the prompt. Papers that did not address the purpose of the speech were
lower scoring. Period. Unless the prompt calls for evaluation, do not evaluate. It takes up space and time
and does nothing to address the task. Identify the purpose of the speech.
(2015) Students need to read and decode the prompt carefully. Many mistakenly thought the passage was
about MLK instead of about nonviolent protest. Many thought Chavez was a leader in the Black Civil Rights
movement. Many identified Chavez as the dictator of Cuba. Many students never identified the author’s central argument.
On reading and understanding the passage carefully:
(2011) First and foremost, students who wrote low essays tried to find gems hidden in the text, without really understanding the context of those gems or being able to tie them to the text as a whole. In other words,
they had trouble being able to move their thinking from small to large.
(2011) Several misreads--students didn’t understand the use of sarcasm in the piece, believing that Florence
Kelly was complimenting Alabama’s progressive legislation regarding child labor. Others misunderstood the
time period (context) and thought that the children’s parents were at home relaxing while they cruelly sent
their children off to work.
(2011) No surprise here--students need to understand the piece as a whole, and then be able to discuss how
each section of the piece builds on the whole. I think of it like a tour of a museum: The museum of Florence
Kelly--admire the exterior of the building and enjoy the architecture of the piece (ideas and organization).
Only then, enter the front door and look at the foyer (introduction)--is there some art here that you can admire
or is it spare and encouraging you to move on? Then, enter each room of the speech (each section of the
speech) sequentially, admiring the art on the wall of each room--what did she do in this section? What ties
the art in this room together? Do you see common themes? What is the effect of the art in this room on you?
How does it make you feel?
(2013) …The less successful responses often involved “predatory reading.” A preconceived idea was used
in writing the response, and the writer tried to force the passage to fit with it. The key to success seemed to
lie in the ability to employ implicit understanding. These responses were more nuanced and more patient.
Ultimately they proved more reflective.
(2014) Unsuccessful essays misread the purpose of the essay, misread specific content related to A.A.’s use
of colloquial phrasing, and did not integrate support well. Many read the letter as an apology for making
Quincy go on the trip.
(2014) Students did not often grasp the full historical context of the letter. The language of the period seemed
to be beyond the students’ skills in reading for the direct meaning, let alone the subtleties found in A.A.’s
prompting of her son to be more attentive to and serious about what he was doing in Paris with his esteemed
father to guide him in developing his diplomatic skills and to introduce him to international politics.
On selecting appropriate and effective rhetorical strategies to analyze:
(2011) Lots of students tried to discuss syntax, but only a small handful were able to handle the complexity
of how sentence structure has a rhetorical effect, so in general, discussion of syntax was shallow at best and
totally incorrect at worst.
(2011) Lots of students tried to discuss tone as a strategy, but these, too, in general weren’t very successful. They didn’t seem to understand that tone is created as a result of several strategies, and they seemed to
imply that just because the speaker takes on an impassioned tone, she is effective.
(2012) Papers seemed to generally be organized in 3 different ways with varying levels of success:
1. the strategy list which totally ignores the order in which ideas are presented in the speech--usually 1 strategy per paragraph (Obviously, these were unsuccessful).
2. a paragraph each on ethos, pathos, and logos (these varied in success depending on the maturity of the
writer in understanding their complex and interwoven nature--some stayed lower half with explanations that
were circular or repetitive; some elevated to upper scores).
3. a survey of the entire speech from beginning to end, looking at various strategies as they work with ideas
of the speech at that point (these were the most successful generally, unless the student fell into summary,
which surprisingly few did).
2. Forget using terms unless absolutely sure of them. Incorrect terms weaken the response. “Expertise” is
not a rhetorical structure. Fallacies are not rhetorical devices, per se.
(2013) One of the first things we did was to go through the passage and note what students might address. It
was no surprise that many students built their response around ethos, pathos, and logos. Yet, at least in my
reading, I did not generally see responses take shape using this method. These responses became forced
and fit very much with the idea of predatory reading. Certainly those appeals can be used, but only addressing them can be limiting.
(2013) In general, students who write their rhetorical analyses as mainly a hunt-and-identify list of various
devices (many related to style, like “diction” and “parallelism”) tend to miss the broader understanding of the
big-picture rhetorical “moves” that an author is making in order to convey a message -- usually in a particular context to a perceived or actual audience. They therefore have difficulty articulating the ways in which the
author’s choices help to further that purpose, instead focusing only on (at best) explaining what that device
contributes to that moment, or (at worst), simply labelling a device and then moving on to the next.
(2014) The least successful of essays written with proper language conventions wrote primarily about “what”
each part of the letter “said.” Too many students sacrificed analyzing purpose for discussing (sometimes
manufacturing) appeals. A surprising number of essays defined specific rhetorical devices/appeals, indicating
a lack of consciousness of “audience.”
(2015) One significant “mistake” that we saw at my table was when students would focus their entire essay on
identifying logical fallacies that the author supposedly made and then “critiquing” the author for that. Although
students could identify a logical fallacy as a rhetorical choice that the author made, students also needed to
analyze HOW that logical fallacy helped develop the argument. This mistake was probably because the student did not read and decode the prompt carefully.
On providing clear, thorough analysis:
(2011) Lots of strategy lists with little analysis. Students seemed excited that they could recognize anaphora,
polysyndeton, asyndeton, periodic sentences, etc. Unfortunately, they didn’t seem able to discuss how these
strategies related or that they were supposed to relate them to the speech as a whole.
(2012) Discuss the effect of the fallacies, don’t just label them. Make sure when discussing fallacies to use the
correct terminology and to explain the effect and the purpose.
(2013) The high scoring responses, 8’s and 9’s, handled the shift in tone. Mid-range responses might have
noted the nostalgic perspective, but these responses did not build on it. Weaker responses noted sarcasm,
but did not seem to understand its function in the rest of the passage, or that detecting sarcasm was merely a
small part of what was actually occurring. Relationships that were noted by stronger responses often detected the connection to the past and future. Who we are and that there exists a symbiotic connection. The good
writers seemed to understand that the goal was to provide commentary that begins conversation and not
ends it. Also, many students were quick to note the rhetorical questions, but again this became a matter of
listing and not necessarily analysis. Some of the stronger responses noted the irony in the mention of Sesame
Street and Grand Theft Auto. There were a variety of ways that this contrast was observed. One of the more
interesting approaches mentioned in teaching rhetorical analysis was to focus on stasis points (conjecture,
definition, quality, and place).
(2014) Successful essays integrated the support for their analysis seamlessly with insight regarding the purpose of the letter, and demonstrated an understanding of the implications beneath the letter’s text (grooming
him for political leadership and developing in him the concept of noblesse oblige). The essays accurately
identified how the allusions, the metaphors, and the mild chastisement all contribute to that larger purpose.
(2015) Often the lower essays contained only “summary” of what the author said. They often followed the pattern of “The author first says…..” “Then the author argues that ….” Finally, the author states that…..” These
essays typically ended up with a score of a 2 or 3 because all they did was repeat the content of the passage
in their own words.
Level 4 essays most often identified rhetorical choices, but did not analyze how the rhetorical choice developed the argument. It was clear that many students knew how to identify rhetorical strategies such as: parallel
construction, hypophora, repetition, telescopic sentence, etc., but they did not understand how the strategy
developed the argument. Often the student would just explain how the example was the rhetorical strategy
identified and then would say the author uses the strategy to emphasize his point. But, there was really no
explanation of HOW the strategy emphasized the point or HOW that developed the argument.
The most successful essays that I read were the ones that identified the rhetorical choice either by rhetorical
name or by explanation in the students own words then they explained HOW that rhetorical strategy/choice
developed the ethos, pathos, or logos of the essay then connected the development of the rhetorical appeal
to how it strengthened or developed the argument as a whole.
Many students focused on the three rhetorical appeals and that focus worked best as described above, but
many 6 essays did not reach the higher levels because of lack of fuller development by analyzing specific rhetorical choices that developed the rhetorical appeals. Some did not reach higher scores because they were
successful in showing development of two of the rhetorical appeals but the third rhetorical appeal may have
lacked full development in their analysis.
Overall, there were some really insightful and well written papers and there were quite a number of adequate
essays at my table. The real difference between those students who wrote adequate or excellent essays and
those who didn’t was those who “got it” analyzed “HOW” the author said it and those who “didn’t get it” summarized “WHAT” the author said.
General Advice regarding the Approach to writing a successful
Rhetorical Analysis Essay:
(All) If you’re learning a sport, you learn the plays and the moves. The plays and the moves have names, but
more important is the ability to put them into practice. A natural athlete may be able to instinctively apply
those plays and moves without necessarily knowing their names. She may not even really be thinking about
the choices of plays and moves, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t use them.
The average person can also learn those plays and moves, and practise them until they become a bit more
ingrained and require less thought and more instinctive reaction, and a keen observer of the sport will know
what they’re looking for when watching what the players do, then use the language of the sport to describe
what’s being done to others.
(2011, 2012) The key for students, however, is being able to write about how the rhetorician’s choices of language achieve the purpose of the speech. Often that is where our students fall short. They can recognize the
devices, but they have difficulty writing about the effect of the devices. That is where the AP teacher comes
in; that’s where the AP teacher is the most valuable: getting them to understand effect and write persuasively
about it.
(All) Another way to think of it is to have students start by thinking not about the *bits* of the piece first, but of
the piece as a whole. Get them into the habit of thinking, first, not “What is this word choice or this sentence
structure doing?” but “How does this piece of writing function rhetorically to accomplish something?”
In simple terms, I explain it to my students kind of like this: When someone sets out to accomplish something
with their writing or speaking, when they take a moment to think about their approach to the situation, they
don’t start out by thinking, “Well, I’m going to need to use personification and imagery. Then I’ll use parallelism, and maybe a bit of diction.” Instead, they think, “Well, I’m going to need to make sure my audience
cares about this thing, and then really make them care enough to do something about it. I’ll probably need to
describe it in ways that will make them see it as something worth caring about. Then I’ll need to reinforce that
feeling to the point where a call to action makes sense to them.” The first thought identifies techniques and
devices; the second thought, however, sets out a strategy.
As the author is writing about the thing, they will start to deploy various techniques and devices in order to
execute that strategy. An analysis deconstructs that process: the author wants the audience to act, but before
they are willing to act, they must see the thing as worth caring about, andso the author personifies it to create
that emotional attachment; the attachment established, the author can then repeat certain key phrases that
re-emphasize what’s most important, perhaps using highly connotative language that supports and deepens
that emotional connection. Now the audience is primed to act.
(All) Another way to think of it is to have students start by thinking not about the *bits* of the piece first, but of
the piece as a whole. Get them into the habit of thinking, first, not “What is this word choice or this sentence
structure doing?” but “How does this piece of writing function rhetorically to accomplish something?”
In simple terms, I explain it to my students kind of like this: When someone sets out to accomplish something
with their writing or speaking, when they take a moment to think about their approach to the situation, they
don’t start out by thinking, “Well, I’m going to need to use personification and imagery. Then I’ll use parallelism, and maybe a bit of diction.” Instead, they think, “Well, I’m going to need to make sure my audience
cares about this thing, and then really make them care enough to do something about it. I’ll probably need to
describe it in ways that will make them see it as something worth caring about. Then I’ll need to reinforce that
feeling to the point where a call to action makes sense to them.” The first thought identifies techniques and
devices; the second thought, however, sets out a strategy.
As the author is writing about the thing, they will start to deploy various techniques and devices in order to
execute that strategy. An analysis deconstructs that process: the author wants the audience to act, but before
they are willing to act, they must see the thing as worth caring about, and so the author personifies it to create
that emotional attachment; the attachment established, the author can then repeat certain key phrases that
re-emphasize what’s most important, perhaps using highly connotative language that supports and deepens
that emotional connection. Now the audience is primed to act.
Students who analyze “moves” as big-picture strategies that involve the interaction of various writing techniques tend to develop and demonstrate a much stronger understanding of an author’s rhetorical purpose
and approach than students who approach the text as just a haphazard collection of techniques that somehow magically connect to a purpose just because the student has asserted that they do. Even students who
run through the text only chronologically or through a mechanical application of the rhetorical appeals tend
only to have a very thin appreciation of how the text
functions rhetorically overall.
The 8 Cs of Strong Writing. A strong written text is:
Complete: Includes sufficient information. Points are well developed.
Concise: Develops major points efficiently, avoiding marginal or extraneous information. (The text is complete but concise: not too little information but not too much either.)
Clear: Has a well defined focus on a central topic/issue. Provides relevant information or arguments, sticks
to a well defined thesis, and reaches a definitive conclusion.
Coherent: Is well organized, with suitable paragraphs and formatting. Provides helpful signals to readers in a
strong introduction, topic sentences, and conclusion.
Cohesive: All parts of the text are clearly related to a central issue/thesis/position. And all parts have a clear
relationship to other parts of the text.
Cogent: Is well argued and presented. Information and appeals are appropriate and persuasive.
Compelling: Includes interesting content focused on substantive, worthwhile, timely information and/or
issues.
Correct: Employs grammar, punctuation, and spelling in line with conventions of Standard Edited American
English. In-text and final citations conform to a standard style guide. Page format and layout are effective.
General Tendencies of Strong and Weak Rhetorical Analysis
Strength of Analysis
Strong
Weak
Awareness of Rhetorical Context
Clearly Identifies Author, Audience, Launches into a Discussion of the
Time, and Setting of the Target
Target Text with Little or No DisText
cussion of Context
Awareness of Author’s Purpose/
Goal
Clearly Identifies What the Author
is Attempting to Accomplish
Fails to Indicate What the Author is
Attempting to Accomplish
Focus
Rhetorical Variables, including
Context, Exigence, Purpose, Appeals, Arguments, Style
Issues and/or Marginally Relevant
Historical Figures or Events
Structural Cues/Signals for
Readers
Clearly Signals Rhetorical Variables/Features to be Analyzed,
Both Globally and Locally
Fails to Identify Rhetorical Variables/Features Explicitly
Development
Works Through a Series of Rhetor- Is Tied to the Linear Sequence of
ical Variables/Features
the Target Text **
Intellectual Mode or Stance
Analysis/Interpretation
Reporting/Description
The following (potentially unwillingly) contributed to this document:
Doug Uehling
Anita Jordan
Jodi Rice
Virginia Waltz
Prof. Roger Cherry
** Mr. Gaughen respectfully disagrees when the analysis includes the function of said sequence. For example,
when conducting analysis that argues that early text establishes, middle text maintains, and later text reinforces the author’s rhetorical intent w/r/t argument, audience, purpose. Or, if if said analysis notes the value of
certain rhetorical shifts tied to sequence.