PB1A
Letter to the Editor #1
Part2 of all three letters: Describe the conventions of this genre
The purpose, published date, title, name, location, identity, strong words, polite way, serious atmosphere, 2-4 paragraphs, evil and good, woman's rights, politics, criminalization, law etc.
What patterns have you detected across?
Which ones seem the most consequential? Name, identity, polite way, the purpose
Part3 of letter1: “Determining Rhetorical Situations.” Analyze the rhetorical situation (writer, goal, reader/audience, purpose, context) of each piece.
Part4 of letter1: What are people writing about? What are the different arguments that people make? How are they trying to “win” people over?
Argument1: The people have to seek justice for the victims of sexual abuse by priests
-It describes how long the history of sexual abuse by Catholic priests
-It states that this is a desperate needs from a church
Argument2: The people have to build a new foundation for itself as quickly as possible
-It states that the present sickness of the church is life-threatening and serious in the last paragraph.
-It uses strong words like "must", "has to", "not allowed"to express how eagerly the decision and the change needs to be made.
-It gives the backup for imperfect situation which is the promise of new life and hope of religious faith.
Letter to the Editor #2
Letter to the Editor #3
Part3 of letter3: “Determining Rhetorical Situations.” Analyze the rhetorical situation (writer, goal, reader/audience, purpose, context) of each piece.
Part4 of letter3: What are people writing about? What are the different arguments that people make? How are they trying to “win” people over?
Argument1: Marijuana causes great harms.
-The writer uses examples of the harms of prohibition, stigmatization and criminalization to compare with the harms of marijuana.
Argument2: It does not do enough to ensure the end of racially biased searches and arrests.
-The writer brings up that decriminalization does not address restitution toward the black and brown communities disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.
-The writer states that the use of marijuana in the US is to advance a racist agenda.
-The writer mentioned and emphasized her identity which is related to marijuana and race.
Needed: A New Foundation for the Church
A priest writes that healing from the sex abuse crisis cannot occur soon enough.
Part2 of all three letters: Describe the conventions of this genre
The purpose, published date, title, name, location, identity, strong words, polite way, serious atmosphere, 2-4 paragraphs, evil and good, woman's rights, politics, criminalization, law etc.
What patterns have you detected across?
The format, date, title, name, location, identity, serious atmosphere, social problems, polite way
Which ones seem the most consequential? Name, identity, polite way, the purpose
Part3 of letter1: “Determining Rhetorical Situations.” Analyze the rhetorical situation (writer, goal, reader/audience, purpose, context) of each piece.
- Exigence: What prompted the writer’s need to communicate in this particular text? What’s the urgency behind the need to enact this genre? Why this, why now? What event/moment sparked the creation of this text?
- Frustration towards the priest and the sexual abuse he committed
- Frustration towards the previous church
- Sincerely wish to seek for a new foundation
- Writer: Who is the writer? What do we know about them? What’s their name? Are they affiliated with a particular organization/company? What’s their role/position?
- Richard G. Rento
- From Lavallette, New Jersey
- Primary/Intended Audience: Who is the intended/primary audience for this genre? Is it addressed to a particular person? If so, what’s their name, what organization/company are they affiliated with, and what’s their position/role? Is it a group? If so, what’s their organizational mission and/or identity?
- The unmentioned editor
- Secondary/Peripheral Audience: What additional peripheral/secondary audiences might play a role in how we can understand this genre? Might other people be interested in the message that’s being communicated? Could the writer have additional people in mind beyond the specific person(s) that they’ve contacted? Who else could be “at stake” regarding the ideas embedded within this text?
- Church members
- Writer's supporters/audience/readers
- Government (federal, state, local)
- The Pop and religion leaders in the country even to the world
- The Court
- Other churches
- Anybody who is invested in this controversial issue
- Writer’s Purpose/Goal: What’s the writer’s goal? What are they trying to achieve? What outcome(s) do they hope that this piece of communication achieves?
- Seek justice for the victims and their families
- Ask to build a new foundation which has to reach the four requirements below
- 1. Welcoming of women into every level of church ministry and government;
- 2. An end to the requirement of celibacy for priests;
- 3. A scientific renovation of the screening process for seminary applicants;
- 4. Steps toward ending the elevation of priests and bishops to the status of superiority and privilege
- Context/Background Info: What additional information is necessary to make the most sense of this rhetorical situation? Is there any sort of history between
- The history of sexual abuse by Catholic priests
- The case is in process
Part4 of letter1: What are people writing about? What are the different arguments that people make? How are they trying to “win” people over?
Argument1: The people have to seek justice for the victims of sexual abuse by priests
-It describes how long the history of sexual abuse by Catholic priests
-It states that this is a desperate needs from a church
Argument2: The people have to build a new foundation for itself as quickly as possible
-It states that the present sickness of the church is life-threatening and serious in the last paragraph.
-It uses strong words like "must", "has to", "not allowed"to express how eagerly the decision and the change needs to be made.
-It gives the backup for imperfect situation which is the promise of new life and hope of religious faith.
Letter to the Editor #2
Women in Congress: Their Time Has Come
Readers say their voices are bound to make a difference.
Part3 of letter2: “Determining Rhetorical Situations.” Analyze the rhetorical situation (writer, goal, reader/audience, purpose, context) of each piece.
Part4 of letter2: What are people writing about? What are the different arguments that people make? How are they trying to “win” people over?
Argument1: It is exciting that Time has come to the women in Congress.
-The writer uses the adj. such as "excited","special","promising","significant","historic"to express how positive this event is.
Argument2: It is disappointing that there is a display of staged photographs with minimal content
-The writer uses Feminist's perspective to state it is regressive to reinscribe the notion that women’s appearances are everything
Argument3: Congress isn’t a beauty pageant.
-The writer brings up that these women were elected because their message struck a chord with the public.
-The writer states that people shouldn't think their looks are the most important.
- Exigence: What prompted the writer’s need to communicate in this particular text? What’s the urgency behind the need to enact this genre? Why this, why now? What event/moment sparked the creation of this text?
- Excitement about the special section on women of the 116th Congress
- The significance about the special section on women of the 116th Congress
- Disappointment towards to a display of staged photographs with minimal content
- Writer: Who is the writer? What do we know about them? What’s their name? Are they affiliated with a particular organization/company? What’s their role/position?
- Amy K. Levin
DeKalb, Ill. - A feminist
- Primary/Intended Audience: Who is the intended/primary audience for this genre? Is it addressed to a particular person? If so, what’s their name, what organization/company are they affiliated with, and what’s their position/role? Is it a group? If so, what’s their organizational mission and/or identity?
ELIZABETH D. HERMAN and CELESTE SLOMAN
- Beth Flynn, Marisa Schwartz Taylor, Rumsey Taylor and Josh Williams
- Justin T. Gellerson, Mike Nelson and Graham Starr
- Secondary/Peripheral Audience: What additional peripheral/secondary audiences might play a role in how we can understand this genre? Might other people be interested in the message that’s being communicated? Could the writer have additional people in mind beyond the specific person(s) that they’ve contacted? Who else could be “at stake” regarding the ideas embedded within this text?
- Females
- Women who intend to be political
- Writer's supporters/audience/readers
- Governors
- Anybody who is invested in this controversial issue
- Women in Congress
- Writer’s Purpose/Goal: What’s the writer’s goal? What are they trying to achieve? What outcome(s) do they hope that this piece of communication achieves?
- The writer wants a display of staged photographs with plenty content
- The writer emphasizes that these women were elected because their message struck a chord with the public and it is unforgettable
- The writer wants to appreciate the editor to publish this article to let the public to see
- Context/Background Info: What additional information is necessary to make the most sense of this rhetorical situation? Is there any sort of history between
- The amount of women among all candidates and nominees has increased significantly
- The Time has come to the women in Congress
Part4 of letter2: What are people writing about? What are the different arguments that people make? How are they trying to “win” people over?
Argument1: It is exciting that Time has come to the women in Congress.
-The writer uses the adj. such as "excited","special","promising","significant","historic"to express how positive this event is.
Argument2: It is disappointing that there is a display of staged photographs with minimal content
-The writer uses Feminist's perspective to state it is regressive to reinscribe the notion that women’s appearances are everything
Argument3: Congress isn’t a beauty pageant.
-The writer brings up that these women were elected because their message struck a chord with the public.
-The writer states that people shouldn't think their looks are the most important.
Letter to the Editor #3
Is Legalizing Marijuana Too Risky?
Readers discuss an Op-Ed that argued that the health risks are being ignored as more states legalize pot.
- Re “Don’t Ignore the Risks of Pot,” by Alex Berenson (Op-Ed, Jan. 5):
- Exigence: What prompted the writer’s need to communicate in this particular text? What’s the urgency behind the need to enact this genre? Why this, why now? What event/moment sparked the creation of this text?
- The great harms marijuana cause
- Not do enough to ensure the end of racially biased searches and arrests
- Strong wish to make sure that the racist origins of marijuana prohibition are not forgotten
- Writer: Who is the writer? What do we know about them? What’s their name? Are they affiliated with a particular organization/company? What’s their role/position?
- Shaleen Title
- A woman of color
- A member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission
- From Malden, Mass.
- Primary/Intended Audience: Who is the intended/primary audience for this genre? Is it addressed to a particular person? If so, what’s their name, what organization/company are they affiliated with, and what’s their position/role? Is it a group? If so, what’s their organizational mission and/or identity?
- Mr. Berenson is the author of a forthcoming book on marijuana use.
- Secondary/Peripheral Audience: What additional peripheral/secondary audiences might play a role in how we can understand this genre? Might other people be interested in the message that’s being communicated? Could the writer have additional people in mind beyond the specific person(s) that they’ve contacted? Who else could be “at stake” regarding the ideas embedded within this text?
- Writer's supporters/audience/readers
- Governors
- Anybody who is invested in this controversial issue
- People who support
- People who reject
- Teenagers
- The law maker
- Writer’s Purpose/Goal: What’s the writer’s goal? What are they trying to achieve? What outcome(s) do they hope that this piece of communication achieves?
- The writer wants to state that marijuana cause great harms.
- The writer wants to make sure that the racist origins of marijuana prohibition are not forgotten.
- The writer states it was criminalized in the United States not because of public health concerns, but to advance a racist agenda.
- Context/Background Info: What additional information is necessary to make the most sense of this rhetorical situation? Is there any sort of history between
- Marijuana becomes legal in some states in the US
- People are actively discussing about if it is too risky to make marijuana legalized.
Part4 of letter3: What are people writing about? What are the different arguments that people make? How are they trying to “win” people over?
Argument1: Marijuana causes great harms.
-The writer uses examples of the harms of prohibition, stigmatization and criminalization to compare with the harms of marijuana.
Argument2: It does not do enough to ensure the end of racially biased searches and arrests.
-The writer brings up that decriminalization does not address restitution toward the black and brown communities disproportionately harmed by the war on drugs.
-The writer states that the use of marijuana in the US is to advance a racist agenda.
-The writer mentioned and emphasized her identity which is related to marijuana and race.
Comments
Post a Comment