Rhetorical analysis writing is a very advanced skill.

It’s unlike anything you’ve ever done.  Instead of making choices for YOUR writing, you are writing about the choices another author made and how those were effective for his/her audience on that occasion.

It is an argument essay where you CLAIM  that an author made certain choices in order to affect his/her audience at a certain time for a certain reason.  You need to be explaining WHY the choice would have been made AND WHY it would have had that effect on the audience.  And you need to think it over, and over and over again.

So… You don’t HAVE to use this formula for your body paragraphs, but you have to accomplish the same things the formula accomplishes if you DON’T use this...

1.  Make the overarching claim for the paragraph.  What CHOICE did the speaker/author make.  This is NOT a device.  This is like the “chunks” that you labeled when you did your prewriting. You mentioned 2 or 3 of these in your introduction.  You’re now using one at a time. These are the topic sentences of your paragraph.  

1. Luce utilizes humor to try to make her audience more receptive to the criticism which was to come later in her speech.
2. Chavez makes comparisons to non-violent protests in the past in order to give precedent for using the same type of protests in the future.
3. Thatcher relays personal anecdotes that reveal the personality of Reagan not just as a leader but also as a man.

2. Provide a DIRECT quote or a paraphrase from the speech/article.   Be sure to give the line number if it is provided.

For instance, in line------------------- (speaker’s last name jokingly OR clearly OR affectionately) declares, “Words…. words”

3. Say how your choice of quote illustrates your claim from #1. Here is where you MIGHT mention devices if they served to further the claim.  (Repetition, imagery, rhetorical questions, etc.)   You do not have to.  DO NOT say logos, pathos ethos.  You can just say what the author is doing without listing a rhetorical term. If you use a term, be VERY sure you’re using it correctly; otherwise, you’ll take away from your own credibility as a writer.  You want this to be about 2-3 sentences which explains why this choice for THIS audience on THIS occasion…  If you find you only have one sentence, think “so what”? Or “why would this matter?” to get to another sentence.

1. This moment of lighthearted connection with the audience would allow them to relax somewhat as they realized that Luce was on their side.
2. Because this audience was only 10 years removed from the protests of Martin Luther King, they would have been well aware of the effectiveness of…
3. This very human illustration of one of the world’s most powerful leaders would likely make the audience feel...

4. Provide a SECOND direct quote or paraphrase for the same claim.   Make it another example of where the speaker did the SAME thing that you mentioned that s/he does in your claim.

1. The speaker/author appeals to humor/the past/personal connection again when s/he says, “  Words….words.”
2. Gandhi also would also connect the religious readers of the magazine to successful protests.  Chavez mentions “words, words…”
3. Thatcher’s portrayal of Reagan continues with “words words” in order to exemplify the…

5.  Say how THIS quote illustrates your claim from #1.  Again, another 2-3 sentences.  Think “so what… why does this matter to this audience on this occasion?”

1. Now, the audience would notice this humor and begin to realize the errors of their ways with the ability to laugh at themselves.
2. The fact that Chavez could connect the non violence to Gandhi as well would serve to show the strength of non-violent protest in circumstances beyond those of just Civil Rights and bring it to…
3. Thatcher’s continued use of these personal stories would remind the audience of their own fathers, grandfathers and loved ones...

6. Take it all back to your thesis from your introduction:  the answer to the BIG question and how his/her CHOICE helps him/her with his/her overall purpose.

1. Because Luce’s choice of humor allows the audience to feel more at ease with her and connected to her as a fellow journalist, they are likely to understand that she is not an outsider wanting to condemn them, but instead a colleague wanting to help them.
2. Once Chavez is able to have the audience on his side understanding that his plan could work based on precedent, he is now able to include them as allies to make his plan of non-violence work in the future.
3. These friends and colleagues of Reagan would be appreciative of the warm depiction of the much revered leader.   Thatcher’s audience would likely be moved by the respect an ally from another country had for Reagan.
   
   

And remember, this is just ONE body paragraph.  You should discuss 2 or 3 strong choices/claims in your essay… and you do it this way EACH time.