Here are the rules of the game:
Read the article many times most carefully.
Write a précis of the article in which you state the entire argument and present the logical progression (the development) of the argument.
Reduce the article to one-fifth to one-quarter of its original length and omit nothing from the essential argument. This is, in reality, the key to the whole enterprise!
Type the précis and begin with your abstraction of the central, thesis, or informing idea of the article. Having understood and written the central idea, present the essential argument in as cogent manner as possible.
(Clue: Once you have assimilated the article through the illustrations and examples the writer uses to make their abstract ideas concrete; you do not have to include these in your précis!)
Here is a central rule:
Do not copy a single sentence from the article. You may use key words and phrases only when you are expressing ideas which are technically precise or when you feel comfortable using the writer’s own words, i.e., you understand exactly what the writer means, and there is really no better way to express the concept.
Finally, in order to complete this assignment, you will have to read the work most carefully, ask questions about the work repeatedly, and reach into your own experiences so that you can shape most cogently the writer’s concepts!
This assignment is not easy! When you have completed it well, you will never, never forget the argument, the examples, and the development of the article. More than likely you will also be learning that, when you write research papers and other critical papers, your ability to write the précis is central to the basics of analysis, synthesis, comparison, and other key, higher order thinking skills absolutely required for your success in college and in the profession or career you have chosen when you graduate.
************
Structure of your précis:
single-spaced
Appropriate (APA) full citation of the work (including author, date of publication, where it was published, etc.).
A list of key terms and definitions (no more than 7 key terms and their definitions derived from the essay).
A précis of the work (as described above).
A final page or two in which you engage the work on your own terms and in relation to the theories that we have read and discussed in class. This consists of the following components:
Author Strategies: Which conversations and/or controversies is the author engaging? What rhetorical theory or argument is the author proposing and/or advocating? To what ends or to what type of intervention (political, critical, theoretical) is the author seeking? What is the significance and/or implications of this research? How does this work affect future work or your understanding of rhetorical theory?
Your Evaluation: Do you feel this essay is well founded? Does this essay succeed in accomplishing its tasks? Does it adequately engage in related academic conversations? Does it adequately explain its rhetorical methodology/theory? Are the thesis and arguments well supported and well explained? Is it academically provocative and productive?
******* Précis Evaluation:
_______ MAIN ARGUMENTS: Your précis should contain all of the author’s essential arguments, including the thesis, important topic statements, conclusions, and/or critical evaluations.
_______ BREVITY: Your précis should be brief, avoiding the inclusion of details, clarifications, examples, and redundant information.
_______ CLEARITY: You should strive to retain the sequence of the author’s arguments. Do not narrate the article (“This author shows that ….”).
_______ AUTHOR’S INTENT: Your précis should retain the author’s argumentative intent, adhering to the writer’s intentions, impressions, and positions.
_______ PARAPHRASE: The content of your précis should be a paraphrase of your author’s wording. You should not use more than three verbatim words in a row when paraphrasing.
_______ Your Critique: Your critique should highlight the author’s attributes and failures. This includes the proper explanation of the theory, the author’s research question or purpose, and the author’s success in deepening or furthering our conversations on rhetoric and rhetorical theory. This section addresses the questions above regarding author strategies and your evaluation and questions for discussion. What does the essay add to our understanding of rhetoric and/or rhetorical theory?
