Rhetorical Analysis 2
ACT, SAT, AP, IB, PSAT, PACT
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-10-19-our-view_x.htm
No, this is not a list of random letters. All of these are standardized tests that many high school students have taken by the end of their high school career. In the editorial, New tests in high schools? They have enough already, the author clearly disagrees with new legislation aimed to increase testing in high schools. Immediately, the reader can see how the author feels about the topic simply from the title of the editorial. The author quickly establishes creditability by including a quote from Margaret Spelling, the Secretary of Education. By including this quote, the author shows that he is at least some what knowledgeable in the topic and has done at least some research about it. Also, the author strikes up a conversation tone with the reader through use of informal jargon such as “Time out.” This conversation tone is meant to put the readers at ease with the author, building up, if not unconsciously, the concept that the author is not unlike you and I, whereas the opposition, (in this case Spelling), sits too high up in Washington D.C. to possibly be able to identify with heartland America or even everyday schools.
Also, it is interesting to note that the author actually does put a name and face to the ‘enemy’: Margaret Spelling. By pinpointing the opposition, the author further establishes his ethos. The author also attempts to make the impression that the other side has some interesting points as well, just simply does not go about solving the problem in the correct way. He does this in order to not discredit the other side, however, it weakens his argument. Overall, the author does a nice job of appealing to the average reader through the conversational tone and sweeping generalizations about high school testing. He also effectively uses specific examples of schools that over test in order to appeal to emotion in the reader.
Yet, academically this article leaves much to be desired. While the evidence for over testing appeals to the readers’ emotions, the author does not go into enough detail or provide other convincing evidence for his argument. A more effective editorial would include statistics on stress on high schoolers, perhaps even correlating higher suicide rates with more testing in high schools or something interesting. In addition, the author could have included statistics on minorities in education to further prove his point instead of making general statements without evidence to support them. Finally, the author should have included more ideas of what federal funding could do and the direct benefits stemming from those ideas.
As a reader, this editorial first caught my attention because the idea of over testing high schoolers has become a controversial issue, one that I am myself all too familiar with. Yet, the author only provides a watered down argument against more testing, appealing to emotion instead of building a sound argument. He takes no risks in identifying problems with the opposition or suggesting feasible solutions. All in all, I found the article to be extremely weak.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-10-19-our-view_x.htm
No, this is not a list of random letters. All of these are standardized tests that many high school students have taken by the end of their high school career. In the editorial, New tests in high schools? They have enough already, the author clearly disagrees with new legislation aimed to increase testing in high schools. Immediately, the reader can see how the author feels about the topic simply from the title of the editorial. The author quickly establishes creditability by including a quote from Margaret Spelling, the Secretary of Education. By including this quote, the author shows that he is at least some what knowledgeable in the topic and has done at least some research about it. Also, the author strikes up a conversation tone with the reader through use of informal jargon such as “Time out.” This conversation tone is meant to put the readers at ease with the author, building up, if not unconsciously, the concept that the author is not unlike you and I, whereas the opposition, (in this case Spelling), sits too high up in Washington D.C. to possibly be able to identify with heartland America or even everyday schools.
Also, it is interesting to note that the author actually does put a name and face to the ‘enemy’: Margaret Spelling. By pinpointing the opposition, the author further establishes his ethos. The author also attempts to make the impression that the other side has some interesting points as well, just simply does not go about solving the problem in the correct way. He does this in order to not discredit the other side, however, it weakens his argument. Overall, the author does a nice job of appealing to the average reader through the conversational tone and sweeping generalizations about high school testing. He also effectively uses specific examples of schools that over test in order to appeal to emotion in the reader.
Yet, academically this article leaves much to be desired. While the evidence for over testing appeals to the readers’ emotions, the author does not go into enough detail or provide other convincing evidence for his argument. A more effective editorial would include statistics on stress on high schoolers, perhaps even correlating higher suicide rates with more testing in high schools or something interesting. In addition, the author could have included statistics on minorities in education to further prove his point instead of making general statements without evidence to support them. Finally, the author should have included more ideas of what federal funding could do and the direct benefits stemming from those ideas.
As a reader, this editorial first caught my attention because the idea of over testing high schoolers has become a controversial issue, one that I am myself all too familiar with. Yet, the author only provides a watered down argument against more testing, appealing to emotion instead of building a sound argument. He takes no risks in identifying problems with the opposition or suggesting feasible solutions. All in all, I found the article to be extremely weak.
posted by Ash3186 @ 5:16 PM
1 Comments:
At 10:08 PM,
Mariam said…
I thought the article was interesting. I didn't realize that they wanted to fund more testing and I thought the author did bring up some good points about how we could use that funding in other ways that our education system is lacking.
I did agree with you on the fact that you can tell the author is building up their ethos right away by quoting the Secretary of Education.
I also agree that maybe they should have put more statistics in their argument. However, I think the fact that the article was an editorial had a lot to do with that idea. Editorials tend to be more opinion and interesting reads, rather than stat filled articles. Also since they were replying to a prior article I think they were basely just writing to say "Hey, she's not right" just so the reader rethinks the ideas of Margaret Spelling.
I didn't really like the way they put the "No Child Left Behind" paragraph right at the beginning. I thought that was awkward and should've been put after the idea after they talked about better uses for funds.
I definitely think the author could have defended their argument better but I think it's hard to do that in an editorial when the papers don't really let you have that much room.
Good Analysis, I liked it!
Post a Comment
<< Home