Week 1: critical reading response: unpacking the rhetorical situation

Week 1: Critical Reading Response: Unpacking the Rhetorical Situation Discussion

Description Welcome to Argument! This week, our texts boldly assert “Everything’s an Argument!” and begin paving the understanding of how to approach the implicit, explicit, and multimodal arguments which surround us each day with emboldened rhetorical and critical consciousness. Our authors overviewed the popular rhetorical appeals (hold tight because we will explore these more in depth in coming modules) and reinforced the dynamic and ever evolving concept of The Rhetorical Situation. Not only do our author’s provide the exigencies of argument (e.g. to inform, to persuade, to make decisions, and to explore) they ask us to ponder the various occasions of argument and to what purpose these rhetorical modes serve. The features of academic argumentation are introduced in Chapter 17 but our compositionist Steven Pinker and Anne Lamott challenge these hallmark features of academic writing in nothing short of what I would describe as, “good trouble.” As you craft your CRR this week, think about how these chapters and articles reinforce or challenge your conception of Argument and how authors like Pinker and Lamott impact your view of the writing process.

Instructions

After Reading the assigned texts, your response should be approached in one of the following ways:

1. Reading with/Reading Against: Read with each text, summarizing the key ideas. Then, “talk back” to the ideas, locating potential gaps or how these ideas might be reconsidered or implemented in various settings.

2. Impact on your own writing: Think of what impact the ideas or concepts in a particular article/chapter/essa may have on the teaching of writing or on writing more generally–in and out of your discipline. Explain as clearly as possible how this impact might occur. You might also talk about the problems and/or possibilities this concept or idea creates for the teacher/student/practitioner. You should reflect, at least a little, on how your own experience(s) in classrooms and courses rub against the concept(s) or idea(s) to which you are responding.

3. Synthesis: Looking at the texts you read for the week, attempt to synthesize a concept or idea that you noticed moving through the texts. Your goal should be to highlight the idea or concept as the writers understand it and then explain how you see these concepts connecting or disconnecting in a productive way. You might also use these syntheses in future projects.

You may want to include key definitions and terms to help you on future projects. Every discussion post must include a question you want the class to address that goes beyond reading comprehension (i.e. we want conversations started not merely yes/no or shallow questions). The expectation is that you engage deeply with the assigned readings and draw explicit connections between your CRR and the readings.

Guidelines

· Type or paste your reading response directly into the submission text area

· You do not need to include an MLA Works Cited entry, but do follow MLA format to cite any sentences with direct examples or quotations you reference from the reading.

Post Requirements

· Original Title of Discussion post, “Walker WK1 DQ Answer” is not original. Try and think outside of the box and pull something unique and individual from our weekly assigned readings

· Initial Response must be 600 words in length

^{"Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, guaranteeing you A results."}