Rhetorical analysis is a great tool for distinguishing the author's purpose of a piece and to pick out the different methods they use to support their point. Being able to recognize when someone is overusing the pathos appeal as opposed to the logos in an argument that should be dictated by facts (such as a political debate) could effectively help you categorize it as a weak argument and prevent you from falling victim to any propaganda. As a writer, rhetorical analysis is especially useful, giving you a platform on which to build your argument. Knowing the basic skeleton for which to base your argument can be immensely helpful. Did you notice that you didn't do a good enough job establishing your ethos in an essay that you wrote? Probably not if you aren't familiar with rhetorical analysis.
One criticism I have, however, is that rhetorical analysis can be argued to be an innate skill that can be learned without it being taught. Think about it this way: we're exposed to rhetoric every day. We naturally become better at separating good arguments from weak ones as we grow older. We don't need to be taught what ethos is to realize that urbandictionary.com is less credible than dictionary.com (or that Fox News is less credible than... well... any other source of information). We don't need to know about pathos to be moved by a documentary about animal cruelty. For this reason, I think that everyone has and needs the ability to perform rhetorical analysis, but the skill can only be refined so far. Additionally, that refinement of the skill will probably make you a better writer, but not substantially.
No comments:
Post a Comment