Jordan
1




Katie
Jordan



Matt
Weinkam



ENG
111



8
December
2009



Meta‐Writing:

An
Analysis
of
a
Rhetorical
Analysis




 Prior
to
English
111,
I
had
not
even
heard
of
the
term
rhetoric,
let
alone


logos.

This
rhetorical
analysis
assignment
truly
helped
me
to
understand
an


entirely
different
area
of
writing,
and
with
that
came
struggles.

I
chose
to


rhetorically
analyze
two
articles
of
opposing
viewpoints,
but
I
had
a
hard
time


deciding
which
article
better
argued
their
viewpoint
on
the
topic.

It
wasn’t
until


after
the
assignment
that
I
truly
realized
it
did
not
matter
which
article
better


argued
their
side,
for
I
was
suppose
to
keep
my
focus
on
the
rhetorical
devices
of


each
article,
not
who
was
right.

But
because
I
spent
an
enormous
amount
of
time


analyzing
which
article
was
better
argued,
I
mastered
the
understanding
and
use
of


logos.

My
understanding
of
rhetoric
was
a
result
of
loosing
sight
of
the
focus
of
the


paper;
however,
I
was
able
to
clearly
back
up
my
opinions
on
the
two
articles
by


excellently
observing
the
logos
in
each
article.



 Despite
my
struggles,
the
logos
I
found
in
each
article
was
effectively


explained
and
addressed
in
my
rhetorical
analysis
paper.

One
example
is
when
I


said,
“Using more logos, the Humane Society goes on to say, ‘The law has never been

used against documentary filmmakers, journalists or others engaging in legitimate speech

–– the only three prosecutions under the law have involved dogfighters who sold videos

in interstate commerce for profit.’ This explains that the law has only been needed, and in

 
 Jordan
2


fact used, when dogfighters make illegal, abusive videos at the expense of animals.” I

effectively addressed a key logical argument and explained when that particular law has

been needed. This use of logos strengths the article’s argument and my paper is also

stronger by addressing and explaining its importance. Another example is when I say,

“The article insists Stevens should be protected under the First Amendment. The author

explains, ‘The federal appeals court reversed his conviction, ruling that the federal law

under which he was prosecuted is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court should uphold

that well-reasoned decision.’ This article addresses the fact that the federal appeals court

reversed Stevens’ original conviction, and they believe with good reason.” The article

uses facts of a previous Supreme Court case to strengthen their position. I recognized

this as logos and explained in my paper how the use of such facts benefited the article’s

main argument. To be technical, I kicked some logos butt.

I definitely feel as if my understanding of rhetoric, and in particular my

understanding of logos, improved over the course of this assignment. Not only did I

effectively address logos used in both articles in a cohesive manner, I also set up and

explained the logical information for the reader, further strengthening my paper. I may

have lost sight of the assignment in the conclusion on my paper when I concentrate solely

on whose argument was better argued; however, I do not believe that affected my ability

to identify the use of logos in both articles. On the contrary, I actually feel as if it helped

because I analyzed each article to the point of exhaustion in attempts to identify a winner,

and in the process discovered every use of logos these article had to offer. I understand

rhetoric beyond a superficial level thanks to my analysis of these two articles and the

information I learned in English 111 (shout out).