31 - Rhetorical Analysis Rewrite

      Cesar Chavez appealed to the poorer, working classes in his article about Dr. King. In lines 91-93, Chavez states, “…time is our ally. We learned…that the rich may have money, but the poor has time.” Chavez uses an implicit relationship in this statement. By repeating the idea of time in both sentences but changing the subject from “our” to “the poor”, Chavez places himself in the poorer community. This builds a more intimate relationship between Chavez and the community, therefore also bestowing more of their trust in him. Also, he can unify the poorer working class together under his leadership, showing that their endurance and patience can outlast the abilities of the rich and their money. 

30 - Rhetorical Analysis Questions

What is a rhetorical analysis?

A rhetorical analysis breaks down a test to show how it works to achieve its purpose. Rhetorical analyses study how authors use specific devices to strengthen their argument, and how these devices then affect the audience. A rhetorical analysis is not supposed to be an argumentative or persuasive about the author’s position, but if they asserted their position well.

What is the format for writing a rhetorical analysis?

A rhetorical analysis should focus on the author, their claim or purpose for writing the article, and whom they are writing for (audience). Each body paragraph should introduce a specific part of the text, show the devices being used, and then explain how those devices enhance the argument. The analysis must show a connection between the textual evidence and the audience, as well as the connection between the audience and the implications of the claim.

How much time do you have to write the rhetorical analysis essay on the AP English exam?

You have about 40 minutes of writing time, plus a total of 15 minutes reading time for all of the questions. This allows 45 minutes total per question.

What are the qualities of a successful intro for a rhetorical analysis timed write?

The introduction paragraph of a rhetorical analysis should give the reader a sort of background to the text, author, and central claim of the text. The audience of the article also needs to be addressed, as well as which rhetorical devices the author used to appeal to the designated audience.

What are the qualities of a successful body paragraph for a rhetorical analysis timed write?

Each body paragraph must focus on one of the devices described in the introductory paragraph. All paragraphs must showcase well-chosen textual evidence that is supported with at least two sentences of analysis per one sentence of evidence.

What are the qualities of a successful conclusion for a rhetorical analysis timed write?

A conclusion paragraph must summarize the devices shown in the rest of the essay, as well as revisit the thesis of the paper. The conclusion should also reiterate the text, author, and audience, but not introduce anything new that was not analyzed in the body paragraphs.

What should you NOT do in a rhetorical analysis?

You should not use any sort of personal engagement in rhetorical analyses. Pronouns like “I”, “you”, or “we” should only be used if you are included in the spectrum of the desired audience, but even then, you should be careful. Rhetorical analyses are also not argumentative or persuasive, so any personal engagement in that aspect is also inappropriate. 

29 - Synthesis Rewrite

       Those who agree with Singer’s argument argue two compelling points. First, by donating or giving some sort of monetary aid, those who are less fortunate can gain some momentum and boost their socioeconomic status. For many, poverty is a bottomless pit that they cannot beat. Every day, bills stack up, interest on loans accrues, and their overall low status compounds. In third-world countries, as Singer argues, problems are more immediate: many struggle to feed themselves (or their families), or find the medical attention that they need. While people in first-world countries are picking colors for their new Porsche, people on the other end of the spectrum are dying from a lack of medical aid. This is completely immoral. Additionally, supporters of Singer’s argument show that by donating to the less fortunate, it can actually boost the area’s economy. If people do not have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, hey can be out finding better work so that they can support their own families. Ideally, the more people make, eventually the more they can spend, which boosts business and monetary circulation that can benefit an entire area. Therefore, one act of donating can actually affect an entire neighborhood. 

28 - Phones are Everywhere

      It seems that as time progresses, technology spreads into the hands of more people. The generation/demographic that seems to be most affected by this spread is teenagers. Often criticized for their constant use of technology, teens seem to have their phones in their hands more often than not. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 71% of all teens have some sort of cell phone. This study detailed five different demographic categories, including sex, age, race/ethnicity, internet user, and household income. All of these categories, and their subcategories, reflected that at least half of that demographic had a cell phone. No matter if the teens were Caucasian, African-American, or Hispanic, more than 60% had a cell phone. No matter if the teen's household incomes was less than $30K or more than $75K, at least 60% had a cell phone. With 70% of males polling to have cell phones and 72% of females reporting cell phone ownership, not even the sex of the teen had an impact. All of this data shows that the widespread majority of teens own some sort of cellular device.  

27 - Play in the Rain

      Children know true joy. Juvenile ignorance paired with few worries creates an optimal state of happiness and bliss. The world is vibrant, their imagination vivid, their creativity unrestricted. As these children mature into adults, however, they lose this connection to their free selves. They become closed off to their childhood, and begin to fear going outside the box. The picture below exemplifies this idea. The young girl on the right embraces her freedom and joy; arms outstretched, she absorbs the radiant colors into her life. The man on the right, however, fearfully hides under his umbrella of darkness. His character, colorless and dim, avoids the vibrancy of the free world around him. This represents the dichotomy between the child and adult generations: what the children once welcomed, the adults cower at. The question is why? Why do adults lose this touch with their younger, freer selves?

26 - Out of Destruction Can Come Good

      When many picture destruction, fear and death come to mind. Annihilation and devastation plague the person’s ability to see any sort of light. However, out of desolation can come renovation, out of obliteration, rejuvenation. The picture shown below exemplifies this. In a forest of ruin, a member of the armed militia stops to play the piano. He is able to lighten the world around him brighter, even though it was presumed to be doused in negativity. He has chosen to bring light to an area of darkness. This is a conscious decisions that people must make in their own lives. It is easy to let times of struggle drag you down. It’s easy to blame the world for your sour mood. But at the end of the day, you have to face your life as it is: your life. No one else has control over your life but you. You must make the conscious decision to find the light that will get you out of the vacuum of darkness. You must find that one person, that one hobby, that one television show, something you can connect to that will being light into your life. Follow the example of the militant man, bring positivity into a field of ruin.

25 - From Under One Rock...

"I just don’t believe that when people are being unjustly oppressed that they should let someone else set the rules for them by which they can come out from under that oppression."

               -Malcolm X


       Oppression can be a bottomless pit. Constantly falling, failing, fighting. No matter the amount of effort, small whiffs of success or relief are swept away by the tornado of stigmatizations. When one seeks oppression refuge, it would make sense to want complete separation from their old oppressors. New laws and acts created by a government or group, however, often set forth this liberation. This is a confounding idea, going from under the suppression of one group to a regulated “liberation” under another. Malcolm X struggles with this concept, noted mostly in his statement, “I just don’t believe that when people are being unjustly oppressed that they should let someone else set the rules for them by which they can come out from under that oppression.” It is a bewildering concept to say the least, supposedly being liberated, only to be placed under restrictions (less than before, but restrictions nonetheless) by a secondary group. This can be shown as the case in the establishment of the United States in 1776.


       The original 13 British colonies in eastern North America were a happy group in the early times of colonization. However, over time, the English government began to see the colonies as less of a people and more of a bother, less of an extension of Britain and more of an economic or commercial revenue source. In essence, the American colonists were greatly oppressed by the English government. With the independence in 1776, one would assume that the colonists, having just come from an oppressive government, would be free and individualistic. Quite the opposite happened: the colonists allowed elites of their population to join together and create new laws and government for the new nation. Essentially, the colonists emerged from under one type of oppression, and then immediately began to regulate their freedom. This perfectly feeds into Malcolm X’s point: as this new population is budding, its progress should not be immediately stifled by new oppressive regulations, when that is what it is trying to leave behind.

24 - Catchphrases are not Superheroes

"Our major obligation is not to mistake slogans for solutions"

               -Edward Murrow

       In a world of upheaval and resistance at every turn, the global population is searching for solutions. Problems with the globe and its people alike have pit civilization against itself in a winless tug-of-war with no end in sight. This endless war has led to a worldwide search for answers fueled by desperation. Out of this search, Edward Murrow points out a flaw when he states, “our major obligation is not to mistake slogans for solutions”. His concern is that out of desperation, the population will latch itself onto an idea that is really just a tagline, not a true solution. Casted by blindness, the population will mistake this catchphrase for a working solution, when in reality it is another coy for power and publicity. This storyline is shown to be the case with one instance, Donald Trump’s presidency and campaign promises.



       Donald Trump arguably won the US presidential election in 2016 because he was an outsider. People connected with him because he wanted to “drain the swamp”, boost jobs, increase the military, and “make America great again”. That was his campaign slogan- “make America great again”; but that was all that it was, simply a slogan. His catchphrase, mind-hooker, tagline. “Make America great again” is not a solution, though many people affiliated his tagline with a true solution of fixing America’s problems. Trump’s campaign was full of these little sound bites that hooked the public’s ear, soothing them into a false sense of security that he was the magical antidote to all of their problems. In reality, the public elected a reality-TV show host, a coy businessman, a glorified toddler with an ego the size of Mount Kilimanjaro, a racist and sexist fool, not a president. The public allowed an ignorant, egotistical racist to become the commander-in-chief of the United States, therefore not living up to their individual obligations to “not mistake slogans for solutions”.

23 - Truth is Powerful

“Truth is powerful, and it prevails”

               -Sojourner Truth

       The truth is a powerful idea. The concept that one idea trumps all others in its category due to its supposed undeniable certainty is extremely influential. In a similar way, this dominant idea always rises to the top over other ideas. These two philosophies of ideological certainty and superiority are illustrated by Sojourner Truth when she said, “truth is powerful, and it prevails.” This is especially the case when it comes to, coincidentally, Sojourner Truth’s speech “Ain’t I a Woman”, but this idea is now in question due to the claims of our current political administration.



       Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman” speech, delivered in 1851, is recorded in two very different ways. One rendition was published in the Anti-Slavery Bugle shortly after Truth gave the speech. This rendition is very formal and grammatically correct. However, there is a second rendition that was recounted by an individual years after Truth first gave it; this time, Truth is quoted as using a very thick African-American English dialect. Though both versions greatly contrast, there are some similar themes. Both accounts describe Truth holding up and referring to the strength in her arm, as well as references to intellect and intelligence. Because of this, we can find truth in the fact that in her speech, Truth spoke of these few things. In that aspect, the truth of what she said is “prevailing” over other unsubsidized claims.

22 - Who Killed Her?

I listened to the first episode of Serial, called “The Alibi”. I was excited in the beginning because I love murders and mysteries; I had read them since elementary school. Starting in about second or third grade I started with Encyclopedia Brown, and progressed on from there. Therefore, I went into this with high expectations. If I am being honest, it was dreadful. I am excited by the mystery and thrill of murders and investigations, but the politics of this story drive me up a wall. The game of “he said, she said” annoys me to the very core. You either remember or you don’t, and the farther from the time of the crime, the worse the recollection is. This is the storyline of “The Alibi”: a high-school girl, Hae Min Lee, is murdered and the police later arrest her ex-boyfriend, Adnan Syed. He has a shotty recollection of the night, and is basically convicted on the case of one “witness” testimony from a teen named Jay. Family and friends of Adnan blame the defense lawyer and claim that she intentionally lost the case in the interest of getting more money for the appeals. The defense claims to have a witness that could exonerate Adnan, but now 15 years later, the case is too far gone. In essence, the episode ends in a “cliff-hanger”, for the story continues throughout other episodes. This was the cherry on top of the dread for me- I would have to continue through this ping-pong of politics to find out the final answer. However it ends, I hope the correct person is convicted, for I will not be pursuing the matter past the end of this paragraph.



https://serialpodcast.org/season-one/1/the-alibi

21 - The Light at the End of the Tunnel

“If you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.”

                                                                                                               ---Dolly Parton

            Each outcome has a cause, yet that cause is not always the most jovial situation. Sometimes, the most optimistic results come of sullen journeys, and although this may not always be the case, it often is. Even the most perfect of journeys have bumps in the road, times where life is not the most fair or just experiences. However, enduring these times is crucial if you wish to see the “light at the end of the tunnel”, as it is often put. Dolly Parton, a singer-songwriter turned philanthropist, once stated that “if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.” Taking this into a deeper, more figurative context, rainbows are often seen as the highlights of optimism and childlike-joy, whereas rain is more of an ominous, foreshadowing device. Parton’s idea can be related to countless anecdotal pieces, but one special case can be derived from the college experience.

            Dolly Parton simply claims that in order to gain the optimal result, you must endure the bumps and hiccups of the journey. This concept can be applied to many students’ journeys through college; a series of successes and failures endured in order to gain their diploma. The students seek their diploma, as it is a token of achievement and success valued greatly by our society and the job market. The obtention of this diploma, however, is not a smooth ride. From homesickness, to mid-terms, to final projects and papers, to simply learning to survive on their own, college students must endure a great deal on the road to their diploma. If they do not push through this roller coaster of a few years, they will not earn their diploma. These years are not the most enjoyable, hence would be the “rain” of Parton’s idea, yet they yield the “rainbow”: the college diploma and off of that, a greater opportunity for successes in a career and life in general.

20 - The Courageous Ones

“I learned that courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ---Nelson Mandela

            Fear can either freeze or motivate people. At the sight of fear, some people cower and hide, while others overcome and are encouraged by its existence. Nelson Mandela, a philanthropic South African president who inspired the world with his words and ideas, argues that the attribution of “courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man,” he contends, “is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.” Mandela’s claim, in plainsman’s terms, is the philosophy that those who surmount fear are the courageous ones, not those who simply lack or avoid exposure to it. This is most commonly the case of the soldiers in the military, including that of the United States.

            Nelson Mandela declares that those who are courageous are no those who do not feel fear, but those who overpowers the fear. The epitome of this idea is shown in the soldiers of the United States military. The soldiers are pushed to their breaking point during boot camp in order to prepare themselves for the war, forcing the recruits to overcome their fears. For when you are in Afghanistan, the insurgents do not care if you are afraid, they simply care that you are their opposition. It is life or death out in the sands, and is not for the weak at heart. For this reason, the soldiers of the United States military are especially courageous because they not only run towards their fears (for everyone has a somewhat fear of dying), but overcome their fears in the interest of serving for their country. These soldiers are the courageous ones, Mandela claims, instead of those of general population who avoid their fears and self-proclaim themselves as courageous even though they live a life without fears.

19 - Morality and Oppression

         For one group of sector of people to oppress another, the oppressors cannot have any attachment to those who they are oppressing. Even when the oppressors have convinced themselves that those who they are oppressing are wrong or to blame at their core, the basic human instinct is to never harm a fellow human. Therefore, oppressors must remove the human label on those who they are oppressing in order to be completely free of guilt or consciousness when they complete their task. As a result, the oppressed cannot appeal for their freedom via a road of morality because their oppressors have striped themselves of moral convictions. This was especially true during the Holocaust and the Mongol seizures of the early 1200s.

18 - Freedom of Existence

       Many people of current times question whether we truly live in a free world. Albert Camus claims that the only way to defy a world stricken by constraints is to have one’s existence purely be one of rebellion. His idea is that in a world where you do not have freedom, the only thing you have complete control of is yourself, and in that aspect, your existence must be your own act of rebellion. If a society is so restricted that individual freedoms are reduced to simple existence, then it is absolutely possible that one’s existence can be an act of rebellion. This can be shown to be the book Fahrenheit 451 and even in real-life in some traditional Islamic villages.

17 - Language Can Fight

Language is a strong tool when it comes to influencing others and how they are perceived, but it is an equally strong tool for fighting this construction. Many people realize that the status-quo does not have to be that way, society does not have to be how it is because that is the way it’s always been. Just because it is tradition does not make it right. Tracing back into our history, we see a shift of terms referring to African-Americans from being “property” that was “bought and sold” to what they really were, people. People who were enslaved but liberated, gaining rights and (somewhat) equality. Right now, we are seeing the pull towards “immigrant” over “alien”, a term that has been used since this country’s foundation. Most recently, we are also seeing a rise in the “Alt-Right” movement being called “neo-Nazi”, because that it what they are and it grabs the public’s attention. This new push for “alternative this” and “alternative that” is leading to an increase in people pulling back the curtain and exposing the man for what he really is. This is grabbing the public’s attention and making them realize the shenanigans that are going on in our government right now. The public, and media, is challenging this by calling a horse a horse, not allowing language to aid the government in pulling its sheet over our eyes.

16 - Extent of our Paradigm Shift

“We’ve become such a narcissistic, “me-first” society that common courtesies have gone right out the door – with a moral fiber that’s barely a thread. And while I’m hardly a religious zealot, I do think a large part of the problem is the secularization of our culture at the hands of the allegedly tolerant and compassionate “progressives.” We’ve taken God out of our schools and poke fun at religion; we devalue human life by condoning abortion and branding anyone who stands up for the unborn a woman-hating Neanderthal. Two-parent households are considered an anachronism; a woman who stays home with the kids instead of getting a job and relegating child rearing to day care is deemed lazy. We all but legalize a drug, marijuana, that takes away ambition and drive, and we attack anyone who’s successful and wealthy – regardless of how hard they work, or how many sacrifices they’ve made in life to get where they’re at. Government has become not an enabler of the private sector, but it’s a misguided Robin Hood, at the expense of personal responsibility – and personal values.”

                                                                                                                     ---Stephen Arnold

            In summary, Stephen Arnold is claiming that we, as a society, are a labeling group who judge everyone who is not us. We are so critical, Arnold claims, that we find a fault in anything and everything we can. I almost completely disagree with him. I think that he is taking our society to an extreme; although we do characterize people based on traits, I do not agree with the extent he is taking it. I do not thing that biparental houses are seen as things of the past, or that stay-at-home mothers are lazy. Not only do I not see them this way, but also I do not think that society sees them that way either. My aunt is a stay-at-home mother of two children under five, and she is one of the least lazy people I know. In addition to caring for two (quite rambunctious) children, my aunt is a social activist, equality promoter, government rebel, privilege killer, and will never be silenced. She uses the fact that she does not have a salary job to do what others cannot, to make a difference in her community, to spread the words of equality and outspoken-ness towards our current administration. Is the paradigm of our society shifting? Yes. Are heterosexual biparental households seeing a rise of single-parent households or homosexual households? Yes. Is this going to be a fast change? Like everything else, no. Does this mean that heterosexual biparental households are outdated? No. That is the main thing I take exception to in Arnold’s argument: society is changing, yes, but we are not riding a fast-track to the extremist edge of the spectrum.

15 - Behind Masks, We Hide

We wear the mask that grins and lies,

It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,—

This debt we pay to human guile;

With torn and bleeding hearts we smile,

And mouth with myriad subtleties.

Why should the world be over-wise,

In counting all our tears and sighs?

Nay, let them only see us, while

We wear the mask.

We smile, but, O great Christ, our cries

To thee from tortured souls arise.

We sing, but oh the clay is vile

Beneath our feet, and long the mile;

But let the world dream otherwise,

We wear the mask!

--  Paul Laurence Dunbar

Yes, I have my own mask. Everyone sees my outer mask, but very few know what it hides. I wish that I did not have a mask, I am not proud of the fact that I do. Part of what everyone sees is who I am, but the others are really just what I want to be. My mask shows a charismatic, caring, funny, and patient person who just wants the best for everyone. That is who I am, at least partly. My mask, however, hides the other part of me. The one who does not easily trust, the one who bottles up emotions, the one who is confused on how she feels because she built walls for so long that getting back in touch with emotion is hard. The one who’s scared to open up, the one who avoids causing problems with those she cares about to the utmost extent. I built this mask out of necessity, out of a want to not have to think about emotion. I found that if there was no emotion, nothing could hurt. When I was 12, my mother’s side of the family erupted in conflict and caused a large emotional strain in my family. I found that those who were closest to you could hurt you the most. I began to wall off, to create this box that I wouldn’t let anything into. One of the hardest parts was looking at my 8 and 5 year old little cousins who didn’t know anything about what was going on and figure out a way to protect them from what had affected me. This is where my want for the best for everyone came from- I drew strength from others being happy to lift me up. Now, years later, I struggle trusting people and getting back in touch with my emotions. I hide behind my mask because I am scared of being hurt again; I am scared of opening the bottle of emotions I have kept locked up. I have my good days and my bad, but I do not let others see this. I do not want people to worry about me; I would rather be the one worrying about them. I will help others until the cows come home because I never want them to be in pain like I was. I will continue to protect my little cousins so that they will not have to build a mask, so they will not get hurt, so they will never feel the pain I did.

14 - Journalism: More Fiction than Fact

“Before Washington journalism turned into blood sport, and politics turned into an exercise in serial lying, there was a fairly firm understanding by the press that personal failings were none of the public's business unless misbehavior affected the performance of one’s abilities to perform public duties. No more. Yet there is a national longing to return to the good old days when political news was more about issues and policies and less about private lives."

            Journalism is no longer a presentation of occurrences; it is a competition for viewers and popularity. The public is second to one’s own agenda, one’s pursuit of fame and money. A story is altered in the interest of attraction and appearance, not for the enrichment of the public. One of the many problems of this, however, is it snowballs. One alteration leads to another and another; until soon you see the rise of “alternative facts”. What even are “alternative facts”? How can you have a fact and “fact” in coexistence, yet in complete contrast with each other? Not only does this plague exist among news and journalism, but it exists in politics as well. A similar appeasement strategy is used by conniving politicians to attract voters: empty promises and extravagant claims. It does not matter what you are saying as long as people are listening. Do what the public wants to get into office, then do what you want once you are in. President George H.W. Bush’s “read my lips: no new taxes” is a classic example of empty campaign promises. Seeking the Republican nomination, Bush proclaimed in 1988 that if he were to become president, there would be no new taxes levied on the American public. However, once in office, Bush recoiled on his promise and passed new taxes in 1990.

13 - Concentration of Media

The media is too concentrated. Too few people own too much. There’s really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see, and hear. It’s not healthy.

          ---Ted Turner (American Media Mogul, Founder of CNN)

Digital multimedia sources dominate our society. New digital billboards on the side of the road, televisions, social media, even newspapers and magazines are rolling over to online publications. Printed media is becoming a thing of the past; it is a lot easier for people to lounge on their couch and absentmindedly absorb information than actively engage in reading. Especially with the coming generation of millennials and their technological “addiction” (constant need for technology), digital media is at its highest influence in history. This is troublesome, however, because the media is dominated by monopolies. Five companies own the overwhelming majority of media, print and digital alike.  This leads to a biased spread of media disguised as different sources, when really the same corporation owns all of them. How can the public construct its own opinion when it is always spoon-fed the same ideas, be them the entire truth or not, until these ideas become “fact”. There are always two sides to every story, yet if small groups of people own the majority of the media, there is no variety to the stories presented. This means that the public is pressed with this inherent bias to believe or think one thing over another and there is a lack of seeking further information. We see not only the application of this idea in Fox News through the documentary Outfoxed, but also the implications in our current political climate and the rise of "alternative facts".