Carolina Gonzalez

November 14, 2017

Rhetorical Analysis Draft 3

Rhetorical Analyzation of a Rhetorical Analysis

Part 1
One of my most recent memorable pieces of writing that I have encountered throughout my
educational career is a rhetorical analysis itself that I wrote in my English 1 class last semester.
This piece of writing was the most memorable to me, the reason being that it was the first
rhetorical writing I was ever assigned. I will admit that it was a bit tedious to comprehend and to
write; I did not quite understand the concept of a rhetorical analysis. This was my encounter. A
rhetorical analysis is a prompt different than any other regular prompt. It requires very close
attention to what the author is portraying, the idea or opinion, and what tools the author uses to
portray that idea or opinion. Although I was completely lost as to where to begin and how
exactly to put it together, I felt I had grasped the notion of how to correctly write a rhetorical
analysis.
A little background and general information about my chosen piece of writing; the rhetorical
analysis I wrote contains seven paragraphs, is three pages long, double-spaced, twelve point font,
and written in the third person. It reflects the writing of another article, which I will now be re-
analyzing.
This memorable piece of writing was written with the purpose to depict an article and to
reassure myself and my former professor that I clearly understood the article I chose to
rhetorically analyze. The reason behind my writing was to address the purpose and to depict the
elements the author of the article utilized to persuade the audience. Also, in my piece of writing,
I stated whether the authors use of elements worked on myself and whether I was persuaded or
not and why.
The overall context of my writing is academic. As a student, I have certain resources offered
to me which is where I pull my ideas from. These resources are the base to how I can make
certain points and how I can back them up. W The context being opinionated and rich in bias, yet
containing statistical data caused me to write the paper. I was opened to express whether I sided
with the author of the piece I was analyzing or not. There was enough context in the piece for me
to insert what I believed the author was attempting to convey. The data provided aided in my
backup. Ultimately causing me two develop my first rhetorical analysis.
When developing my rhetorical analysis in my former English class, I faced a few constraints
that put a halt on my ideas. To begin with, I am not very assimilated with rhetorically analyzing a
text and then having to write about it. I was not familiar or even good at writing in an impersonal
style. I usually like inputting my personal opinion, but I could not do so in this writing. Aside
from the negative, these constraints gave me a positive outlook and push towards this paper. It
made me really think about the context of the piece I am analyzing and converting that to my
own context. Which of course was difficult, but opened my knowledge to another notion.
As for audience, I was writing as if my professor were my intended audience. For the most
part, my professor was meant to read or use my writing since she was the one who pushed me to
write this piece. When I say use my writing I mean it in the aspect that she was able to take my
writing into consideration for her to decide on whether she agreed with what side I took on the
allayed piece or not. But my fellow peers could have also read and used my writing towards their
own writing, they could learn from my mistakes to correct theirs. From this writing not only did I
learn how write a rhetorical analysis, but I also learned how to detect and depict the various
methods authors use to bring about and persuade ideas to the audience.

Part 2
The disciplinary major chosen to analyze is Nutrition (Natural Science). After reading about
the style of writing in this field from the CSUS Handbook, Writing and Researching in the
Natural Sciences and Mathematics, it is interpreted that the writing within the major of natural
science is straight to the point, short, and simple. The writing contains no humor, irony, or
sarcasm because only facts and data are being stated, oness opinion should not be included. Not
only is it very concise, but is very concrete and not open to one or more interpretations
(DeGraffenreid). The writing is separated into different sections- Abstract, Introduction,
Experiment, Results/ Data, Discussion, and Conclusion. Many tables and figures are included to
support the data and ideas being presented in the writing.
As Professor Trueblood states, some of the very unacceptable things within the writing of
natural science are having numerous and obvious misspelled words, being excessively
redundant; never repeat what has already been said. A great importance is citing peer-reviewed
journals and scholars books.
The handbook explains how the main exigence of writing in the natural science expectations is
to explore questions about the physical universe and to hypothesize and experiment; explaining
and providing data and information about those hypothesis and experiments. The context is of
well-educated and experienced people in the major of natural science, proving and teaching
others of what has been explored and discovered. As perceived from the reading, the intended
audience are other people within the natural science major, professors, and those who are
interested in the findings of the writer. Writers in this field write to professors and to the outer
community of natural science to not only express a hypothesis, but to express it scientifically
through observations and data.

Part 3
The piece of writing chosen in part 1 compared to the writing expected of natural science is
quite different. Because they are so distinct, the paper explained in part 1 would not be
considered a very good paper to turn in to a Nutrition professor. Scientific writing mandates rigor
and accuracy. In the sciences, words most of the time have specific meanings; this can be a
challenge for many students. It is expected that students integrate figures, graphs, and tables into
reports flawlessly. Having the ability to assemble figures, graphs, and tables is a vital part of the
craft of scientific writing (DeGraffenreid 106). Many choices and changes need to be made in
order for the piece of writing chosen in part 1 to be permitted under major of natural science.
Although writing in natural science contains a bit of similarity, for example, Figures may be
used in the experimental section if they show an instrument was set up or to show visually how
an experiment was carried out (CSUS Handbook 111) which is almost like a quote in the
english writing. Making it for the most part very unlikely that the rhetorical analysis in part 1
would be accepted by an instructor who specializes in the field of natural science.
Both writings are completely different and ask of two completely different things. The
rhetorical analysis would actually be the complete opposite of the natural science writing. The
reason being that the rhetorical analysis contains more of a lively and humorous language, it is
not at all straight to the point, the structure, style, language do not fit the guidelines, and is not
exactly elaborating or proving a hypothesis. In its totality, a professor in the natural science
would be allergic to the paper in part 1 in a detesting way. Aside from all the negativity, many
things could be grasped and learned from chosen major for future reference. The principles of
language, concentration, context, purpose, and supporting details could be drawn from this
writing to aid in future situations. When the chance to write in the chosen field of natural science
is given, the guidelines, structure, and language will already be assimilated; the writing will then
be accepted.