Hi Joseph, I can assure you that my grading has nothing whatsoever to do with liking or disliking your style or approach. It is simply a matter of writing according to the assignment and its instructions. Consider them below for the rhetoric paper. While you spent considerable time analyzing arguments, as I indicated in my comments, the assignment was to analyze rhetoric, according to the logos, ethos, and pathos categories and to exemplify each from quotations drawn from primary speeches/writings (like the Fed/Anti-Fed papers or otherwise).
I’m happy for reply in email with an addendum addressing these requirements in a 2 page supplement in order to help your grade improve. INSTRUCTIONS Political discourse is characterized in part by the use of rhetoric, which can be defined as the use of effective arguments employed to persuade an audience. According to Aristotle (The Rhetoric 350 B.C.) rhetoric employs three types of proof: logos (logical and factual), pathos (emotional), and ethos (credibility and authority of speaker/writer).
As we have seen in our study of the constitutional ratification debate, Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike employed a range of rhetorical proofs in defense of their own brand of republicanism. Identify one or two examples of each type of proof that stand out as particularly effective or insightful, providing specific arguments and quotations from one or more Federalist and/or Anti-Federalist essays to support your analysis.
Your writing must be detailed, objective and professional in tone, reflecting your own analysis of source content. The introduction must clearly identify the purpose of the analysis, and content must align with the research purpose.
• 3-5 scholarly sources are required
• New Roman font
• Page length does not include title and Reference pages
• Do not use subheadings or insert extra spacing between paragraphs
• Do not use first- or second-person perspective (. personal pronouns I/we/you)
• Current Turabian Author-Date format must be used
