1.8 Rhetorical Analysis Essay

text and magnifying glass

Objectives:

Apply critical reading techniques to text
Compose a rhetorical analysis essay
Evaluate how personal context influences a perspective
Summarize, respond to, and document sources
Instructions:

For this assignment, you will apply the techniques of rhetorical analysis from Chapter 4 to an article on recycling.

You may continue with FOLLOWING articles https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/07/are-alternate-utensils-for-take-out-an-envrioment-friendly-option/

Review the following concepts that you need to use in the analysis: rhetorical situation and appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos (Introduction chapter); elements/structure of argument including refutation (Chapter 1); rhetorical analysis, rhetorical situation, context, means of persuasion, rhetorical strategies, and stylistic techniques (Chapter 4).

Review your earlier assignments and discussion posts on recycling articles prior to the analysis. You will write to an imaginary critic as your audience. Understand that your imaginary critic is skeptical and needs convincing.

Requirements:

Approximately 1000 words, plus a Works Cited page in MLA Format. Don’t forget your in-text citations!

Tips:

To see a sample paper, read the article “Terror’s Purse Strings” by Dana Thomas on pages 118-119 ARTICLE LINK https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/opinion/30thomas.html

and the following sample rhetorical analysis of the article on pages 119-121. ARTICLE LINK http://billtheblogg.blogspot.com/2010/09/week-3-blog-don
t-even-think-about.html

This sample student’s paper is structured similarly to the assigned paper. Pay attention to the marginal comments and notice how the student states the claim and moves through the analysis of different rhetorical elements.
To gather ideas for analysis, please view this handout on Writing a Critical Response and this page on The Rhetorical Situation. The file with a PowerPoint presentation is located at the top of the linked web page.
Please review the MLA lesson available in this weekly folder.
You can start with the Template for Writing Rhetorical Analysis on page 123.
To make sure your paper meets the expectations for this assignment, review the page with “Tips for Rhetorical Analysis Essay” that follows the assignment and consider the grading rubric for the assignment included in this weekly folder.
If you have questions about the assignment, post them to Q&A Topic on the Discussions.

Due: Sunday, Week 2 (in Unit 2)

Where do I post my work? Please click on the 3.2 Rhetorical Analysis Essay link in black type at the top of the page. Since this is a formal essay that your instructor will type comments on, please upload your essay as a Word file. If needed, review how to submit assignments HERE.

The Word file should be named: “LASTNAME_Rhetorical_Analysis_Essay” and then attached as a file, for example, SMITH_Rhetorical_Analysis_Essay.

You will submit your work via SafeAssign tool. You may view your Originality Report and resubmit the paper up to 2 times (total 3 submissions allowed).

Please, check the box “I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.”

ANSWER

Rhetorical Analysis Essay

The article under analysis is “We Are So Forked” by Jenny Luna published in 2017. The article focuses on the importance of recycling identifying ways in which plastic utensils and bags have become an enormous danger to our environment, especially in the sea world. The author focuses on the takeout, and food deliveries, whereby in 2 billion meal deliveries made in 2015, half of that, 1 billion of the cutlery including forks, spoons, and knives were disposed of and tossed. She further asserts that food and beverage packaging account for about 67% of the litter we find in the streets, which all endanger the wildlife and our water bodies such as the oceans where it is estimated they house over 8 million tons of plastic (Luna). Understanding this background is crucial for a comprehensive rhetorical analysis of the author’s ideas and perspectives. This essay argues that the author makes value claims arguing on the evils of continued disposable plastic utensils into our environment, uses inductive arguments, and integrates rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade her audience. Moreover, she uses diverse supporting evidence, including observations, personal experience, opinions, and expert facts from various environmental organizations and the United Nations statistics and reports.

The author makes value claims arguing on the evils of continued disposal of plastic utensils into our environment. According to Luna (2017), “Apart from being an eyesore, disposable cutlery endangers wildlife” (Luna). She shows that they have contributed to the larger problem experienced today and when plastics break down, sea creatures, which we consider as seafood dinner mistake them for food, thus causing them harm. This argument is rather logical and tries to explain the evils associated with always harming nature that we expect to find food. In the contemporary world, people’s lifestyles have changed, and the trend for takeout and food deliveries is the norm for many people. Due to their tight and busy work schedules, finding time to have home-cooked meals may be challenging and without any time due to exhaustion. Hence, as the author claims, plastic cutlery from food delivery becomes the takeout habit’s signature side. This is not wrong, somewhat it is relieving, as one can eat healthily and as required while working. However, how we dispose of these plastic utensils is the claim the author seeks to judge as immoral and destructive as we are destroying the source of our delicious meals, which is partially valid and logical. This is because, if we continue disposing and polluting the oceans, ‘our seafood’ will be harmed and die. However, the world is endowed with many sources of water bodies and seafood sources. What seems right is that seafood for everyone globally will drastically reduce and only a few will manage to afford as the rule of the corporate world when demand is high, but supply is low, they can decide to inflate the prices. Overly, the author makes the valid, logical, and persuasive point that these disposable plastics endanger wildlife: fauna and flora in and offshores.

The author uses inductive arguments integrating the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos to persuade her audience. It works rather well because the claims and assertions made are rather persuasive and the audience such as those deeply involved in takeout and food deliveries, food restaurants involved in using large numbers of plastic utensils, and enthusiasts of nature and the environments, such as I can be moved easily to provide and adopt better recycling and environmental conservation solutions and practices. For instance, “Apart from being an eyesore, disposable cutlery endangers wildlife” (Luna). This is an undisputed valid and logical claim the author makes. Even though we counter-argued this point to say that plastics provide some benefits, the bottom line is that plastics, in this case, plastic utensils offer more harm than good. The comparison is because the author also seems to provide the benefits and limitations of using metal forks as the alternative for plastic forks. She implies, “The change means El Metate has more to wash” (Luna). Every decision and action has a benefit and limitation; it is left for us to choose our struggles. In this claim, El Metate reduced the operational costs of always buying three cases of disposable forks and reduced waste; however, it required more water or time to clean the utensils as they are reusable and recyclable. Nevertheless, the bottom-line, this decision helped decrease waste, decrease costs, and save the environment, especially the seas and oceans, which seem to become the new minefields of disposing of our plastics.

The author uses the case study of El Metate to provide ethical reasoning among business owners in this and other industries. She persuades and supports her inductive argument that the plastic utensils provided during takeout and food deliveries are the primary causes of sea degradation and environmental pitfall. This she suggests from an observation she has made in her line of work, stating, “but in 2015 we placed nearly 2 billion delivery orders” (Luna), and if half were single-use utensils than annual plastic utensils tossed is 1B. Moreover, she defends and supports her claim and argument through data from reliable sources such as the UN’s studies. According to the author, it is morally or ethically right to use the metal forks, despite the much cleaning effort as it provides better outcomes for everyone. Personally, this is more than persuasive, because, for the betterment of humanity and survival, we need to work as a team, where we care and value other people. This does not mean always sacrificing personal happiness for others but a collective duty to keep the cosmos order (nature-humanity) balanced as we live a dyad relationship. Feels, like reading this article has provided an emotional appeal, which the author meant the message people should take away in addition to investing in a sea change that involves not only changing our habits as humans and maximizing our collective duty and responsibility but also conducting effective research and toothier legislations that punish than reward. The latter is somewhat useful, as when punishment such as hefty fines is placed on objects, people tend to disassociate with them. For instance, a patient is told to cut down her meat consumption because she loves meaty food. The caution is: stop consuming much meat, at least eat some vegetables, it is not healthy, you will get sick. This does not seem sufficient; however, try increasing the taxes and prices for all meat products; it becomes hectic trying to consume meat every day. This is what the author Luna tries to explain with the plastic bags ban. If one is seen with plastic bags, they are fined heavily. This legislation has worked effectively, supported on a personal experience and the data from Luna’s article.

Finally, the author uses diverse supporting evidence, including observations, personal experience, opinions, and expert facts from various environmental organizations and UN statistics and reports. Her personal experience is seen when she argues that in 2015, at least 2 billion food delivery orders were made, ‘we’ means she works in one of the food delivery companies. Through this experience, she observes that if half were single-use utensils meals out of the 2 Billion orders, then 1B plastic utensils are disposed into the environment. More importantly, the author uses a comprehensive and reliable source that provide expert facts. For instance, studies from the San Francisco Bay Area, the United Nations, company surveys and reports, and organizations all with additional supporting links one can follow and learn more about the studies and statistics made.

In conclusion, Luna’s ecologically-oriented article provides valuable claims that help understand the evils presented by the use and disposal of plastic utensils during takeout and food deliveries. Luna uses rhetorical tools effectively creating reflective imagery and picture of what our habits are resulting in. She also makes her arguments persuasive with credibility, passion, and an ethical, logical, and emotional appeal to her readers and audience who could be people deeply involved in takeout and food deliveries (corporate professionals, home, youths, college students), food restaurants involved in using large numbers of plastic utensils, and enthusiasts of nature and the environments. However, Luna’s argument on the recommend sea changes, such as metal forks, can be developed more with more factual evidence and logical explanations. Concisely, Luna provides a persuasive and fair argument considering the global climate crisis the world is facing today.

Work Cited

Luna, Jenny. We Are So Forked. Wait, we toss out how many plastic utensils every year? July 2017. <https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/07/are-alternate-utensils-for-take-out-an-envrioment-friendly-option/>.