Share with the class the introduction of your paper. In the comments, please identify the exordium, narratio and partitio of your classmates entry. Also, give a critical analysis of their introduction and respond with what interests you about the topic. Questions you might have about it or what you might like to learn if given the chance to read the paper in its entirety.
Many leaders have been tested throughout history, most of the ones who passed the tests are those who have well developed rhetorical skills. World leaders such as Saint John Paul the Second, Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler, and Donald Trump are all examples of leaders who have or are developing these skills. The question then arises; whose skills prove to be the most powerful? The most effective leaders are those that take advantage to language, however those who are good willed and God inspired tend to be most successful. The abilities that a leader possesses on the manipulation and creation of language can make or break leadership.
ReplyDeleteYour partitio as well as your thesis statement are very well put and formulated! Even your narratio is decent. However, I would say that perhaps your exordium might be just a bit lacking. Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t exactly find myself taken with it. Besides that though, it’s pretty fitting. Not to mention, the subject matter of your paper is rather intriguing. I’m interested in seeing your approach to addressing Donald Trump’s rhetorical strategy. While he isn’t the most articulate, I am interested in seeing a scholarly conclusion on him, especially as he is the only living figure mentioned. Good job so far.
DeleteI agree with Anna in saying your exordium seems to be lacking. All of your other elements, however, seem to be present. I think if you find a way to introduce the topic a bit better it will set the stage for the great paper you'll have!
DeleteYes, this is a very powerful introduction. Very enlightening. I agree with many aspects of this paper, however, I feel that there could be a more compelling exordium. Anyway, I thought it was great.
DeleteSilence—it paints the walls, settles on bent heads, and deadens the air. It is a suspension in a room full of the most attentive, leaving many itching and cringing. Someone somewhere coughs, but it does little to diffuse the awkward tension. A reaction such as this is the inevitable nightmare of comics everywhere. Humor, as it stands, is not always suitable. The fine line between the hilarious and the inopportune is one with which generations have grappled. It is a feat that requires great tact to successfully execute. The skills necessary to be truly humorous tend to be lost on many, but perhaps that is the true strength of comedy. When used to its greatest extent, humor is a gift honed that may even be able to profoundly affect the ways in which others think. It begs the question: could humor be appropriate or even useful in rhetoric? Perhaps the answer may seem clear to one who is decided on such matters, but through an examination of classical argument, journalism, speech delivery, advertisement, television, and stand up comedy, it becomes quite clear just how nuanced a question this truly is.
ReplyDeleteYour exordium grabbed my attention right away! It is very descriptive and just made me think. You also did well describing the facts or narratitio within the introduction. I found your paratitio present within the question you have which clearly sums up what you are arguing.
DeleteI really like this introduction Anna! All parts of the paragraph are there, and your first sentence really wants to make you read the rest. I'm very interested in reading the rest of your paper after that chunk.
DeleteMuy muy bueno. I like many of the words in this introduction. Very coherent tone and words, I wouldn’t change anything. I’d be very interested to see the rest.
Delete1 Peter 2:17 tells us to, "Treat everyone you meet with dignity. Love your spiritual family. Revere God. Respect the government." Years ago this scripture passage would have held in high regards within the healthcare community, especially where it tells us to treat other with dignity. As the years went on, however, this feeling of concern for a patient has started to slip away. As doctors feel they have a schedule they have to stick to and just walk in and out of rooms, patients start feeling like less of a person. In other words, the dignity of the person seems to go away. In order to save the person inside the patient, healthcare providers of all kind need to shift their focus back towards positive bedside manner.
ReplyDeleteYou added some really beautiful lines to address a rather heartbreaking situation. You really do start strong with your verse, which covers values most if not all of us can attend with as an exordium. You explain the situation, a clear call to narratio, and you present your thesis in place of a partitio. From the standpoint of a chronic patient, I do not know very much on this issue other than the experiences I have had with my sister’s doctors, so hopefully you will be able to inform me on the business of bedside manner in healthcare. I look forward to this and the direction you seem to be taking it.
DeleteYour exordium is very intriguing because you took a statement from the Bible that is beautiful like Anna said. It’s good that your narratitio comes from the views of doctors! The only thing is I have a little bit of trouble identifying your partitio or the argument you are making but I’m sure it will be extremely good.
DeleteThe framework of every democracy is unified by the laws enshrined by judicial and legislative institutions. Among these, the right to freedom of expression is most carefully upheld. Despite this, nearly all regional and national courts have ruled that certain measures are warranted to restrict this freedom. In leveraging these rulings, as well as several statutory laws as defined by and in accordance with the ICCPR, a new legislative precedent that fosters the use of valid information, while limiting the unchecked use of rhetoric in politics can be speculated. In pursuit of this objective, arguments arise mostly due to the questionable legality, legitimacy and proportionality of this proposal. In addition to these obstacles, any ambiguity regarding the merits of this objective must be dispelled. Without encroaching on the freedom to express one’s views, and without abridging the right to freedom of expression, this precedent will act as a mediator between safeguarding merit-based governmental processes with freedom.
ReplyDelete“Be brave enough to stat a conversation that matters”. This quote by Margret Wheatley perfectly encapsulates the message that needs to be established in this society. Within this era of cell phone, emojis, and Snapchat, people seem to have forgotten the importance of a genuine conversation. The views of talking in this society are mirrored in this quote by Iman Ali, “One who talks too much makes the most mistakes”. People today are so scared to talk, for fear of making a mistake or offending someone. The truth is if you don’t make any mistakes, how can you learn? The thing about talking, is that we don’t do it enough.
ReplyDelete