Carolina Gonzalez

Professor Doutherd
English 5M

Rhetorical Analyzation of a Rhetorical Analysis

Part 1
One of my most recent memorable pieces of writing that I have encountered is a
rhetorical analysis itself that I wrote in my English 1 class last semester. 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. A
rhetorical analysis is different from any other regular prompt for it requires very close attention
to what ideas and opinions the author is portraying and how it is portrayed. 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 another articles writing about where the
money of the sate of California can go to instead of to an arena. The author of the article
expresses her opinion towards that statement, which is what I analyzed.
This memorable piece of writing was written with the purpose to depict an article and to
reassure myself and my professor that I clearly understood the article chosen to 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. 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 to 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. With my writing she could decide on whether she agreed
with what side I took on the 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 and use it 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
whatsoever. 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.
Just as every subject of writing contains, Professor Trueblood states some of the very
unacceptable things within the writing of natural science. These unacceptable things are having
numerous and obvious misspelled words, being excessively redundant, and repeating 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 the hypothesis and
experiments is also an important concept. 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 which can be a
challenge for many students. Also, the expectations of natural sciences exceed those of english,
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 the 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). This is almost like a quote in the english writing. But for the most part, it is very
unlikely that the rhetorical analysis would be accepted by an instructor who specializes in the
field of natural science.
The rhetorical analysis would actually be the complete opposite of the natural science
writing. This is because the rhetorical analysis contains more of a lively and humorous language.
It is not at all straight to the point, nor do the structure, style, and language fit the guidelines. To
add on to the list, it is not exactly elaborating or proving a hypothesis either. 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.