ENG 314-001

1.) I would define rhetoric as being able to speak and write effectively as a way to communicate and persuade. This is similar to excerpt one because each of the steps listed (1-7) all coincide to help one practice and achieve affective communication skills. By finding specific purpose, focusing on your audience, thinking about the larger context, and seeing the larger purpose for communicating at all one can find several new communications strategies. Excerpt one explains these strategies as finding a medium within your audience (such as a visual), arranging the material being presented in a way appealing to the audience, and finally testing your presentation before presenting it to your final audience. My definition I found to be very similar to excerpt one.

2.) I do agree with this statement. I feel that they realized they needed someone to do the not-so-fun part of the job and did not think things through. Presenting this opportunity in an appealing manner and to an audience that would be receptive would have been the best way to approach looking for people to help with the Fast Car project. Another problem was the fact that they did not think about their audience. They presented their need to the SWE as if they were only good at book work and were not useful in any other department of the Fast Car project. This in return, made the women upset that they were saw fit for such a limited role compared to the men on the project.

1. Rhetoric in my definition from reading that chapter is try to get a point across to a person or group of people in a way in which they understand exactly what you are trying to say. Your goal being that you want to teach, inspire, or even make people question something. I feel that the paper pretty much said the same thing, You want to identify with the people you are going to talk to. You should talk at a level the people would understand rather than above or below them. You should research your audience finding out as much about them before talking with them in order to better display your message.

2. I do agree with that statement. They showed up totally unprepared and just figured they wanted more girls in the club without having put any thought into it. At any point a person should expect when giving a presentation that the group would ask questions afterward. Having not thought about any purpose other than they wanted women, the best they could come up with on short notice was that they could be a secretary. Though it was funny, they should have prepared a purpose for including the women in doing something more such as helping build a car, etc. I think another problem was that they didn't really seem to take the other club seriously, they just knew they wanted women in the group, but a womens group such as the one they were talking to are obviously well educated women and they should have definately approached that differently having more ideas and such.

1)Rhetoric, in my opinion, is when a speaker uses the language as a device to persuade or entertain. This is achieved when one is an effective communicator and connects with their audience. Rhetoric is a daily part of everyone’s lives- ranging from billboards to movies. I agree with the idea in Compose, Design, Advocate that we are able to “shape and deliver our text” in order to establish relations with an audience. Although the excerpt presents many valid facts, I believe it should stress the importance of having truth behind one’s rhetoric and not exaggerating in order to influence.

2) I do not agree that Walter’s group’s biggest problem was the lack of a specific purpose. I believe there were many other problems that led to the embarrassment of the group. They had a purpose, which was to recruit more women, but without preparation their point came across as offensive to the women. The group definitely did not consider their audience. When they were in front of the audience, they realized too late that they had not prepared what to say. Their failure to thoroughly communicate prior to the presentation ultimately led to their catastrophe. With proper utilization of the diagram, one can avoid the mistake Walter’s group made and successfully communicate.

1. I believe that rhetorical writing is often used to persuade or sway a particular audience into understanding or agreeing with whatever content or message that the author delivers. To do so effectively, the author needs to take into account the intended audience while in preparation or in the process of constructing his/her idea or message. I do think that the graph and definition in the reading assignment reflect this idea of rhetorical writing being more beneficial and successful based on its intent and the consideration of other factors (like the audience).

2. I don't necessarily think that the group lacked a purpose. I more so believe that the group had a purpose, but failed to successfully achieve the purpose due to their lack of full preparation and testing. I think that the group also failed to realize that females, especially those who are surrounded by male-dominated careers, can and will take offense to being undermined during a professional meeting. Therefore, they should have arranged the presentatation, tested it, and then questioned whether the delivery or possible questions concerning the delivery could/would create negative results. Part of preparing for any meeting or presentation includes preparing for the response or unforeseen questions of interest or concern.

1.) To me, rhetoric is a method of persuasion that makes an audience believe something or do something. I think rhetoric encompasses more than just language. For instance, I think that the tone of voice someone uses, or one's body language, can affect the way an audience responds. My definition is very similar to the one that "Compose, Design, Advocate" outlines, in that, like the writer's definition, mine involves creating a relationship with an audience through a unique delivery of a text; the delivery is important, because the audience is focused on more than just the words the speaker is saying, but also how he or she is saying them.

2.) I do think that their biggest problem was lack of a specific purpose. The group met with the women under the assumption that no manner of convincing would be needed to lure them into their group. They didn't plan what they would say, or even what their purpose was for inviting women to join them. Another major problem with the group, as the text stated, was their lack of a visual aid. When a group puts together a visual aid it forces them to plan out what topics will be discussed. Therefore, if the group would have made a visual aid, they would have at least had a general idea of what they were going to say. Even if they didn't have a detailed plan, I'm sure they would not have invited the women to be secretaries, because it doesn't take a lot of planning to realize how horrible a move that would be.

I’ve always thought rhetorical writing or speaking was a means of persuading your audience. The book says it is a form of persuasion; however the book gives further detail saying that the speaker thinks about which emotion to use, how to gain the audience’s trust, and how to arrange their speeches.

I do not agree that Walter’s group lacked a specific purpose. They knew what they wanted to accomplish, they wanted more women in their group. However, the biggest problem was that they didn’t know how to go about getting more women to join. Their presentation didn’t seem to be well-planned. The group was not prepared for questions. They also didn’t give very much thought as to why they wanted more women. They had a specific purpose or goal for the group, however they did not have one for the presentation.

1) Over the years I've always defined rhetoric, especially when dealing with writing, as pertaining to the overall persuasion of an audience. The book goes into a bit more detail while it also defines rhetoric as an act of persuasion, but it explains how it also deals with effects you have on the audience, your relationship with them and what you hope to achieve with them.

2) Based on the information given, I'd have to agree and say that Walter's group did suffer from a lack of a specific purpose. I agree with this because it seemed that they were so enthusiastic about having women onboard the project that they assumed the women would be sharing their enthusiasm with just the proposal alone, which really didn't include the reason "why." Another issue that was a problem was that they did not actually think out what the women could bring to the table besides their presence, which in turn resulted in hurting the women's feelings and Walter's group losing their participation in the project. Better planning could've helped both of these problems out.

1. I would say that rhetoric is persuading an audience through logos (logic), pathos (emotions)and ethos (authority, credibility). Though the book didn't mention these words, i feel that all of the steps they discussed covered each of these. Its all about the way you communicate to the audience, and the way you choose to appeal to them, that make it effective. Like when they suggest that the men should start out by acknowleding the problems women engineers face on their campus and in the larger world. That would appeal to the audience's emotions because that is an issue that these women feel strongly about.

2. I do agree with that, because if they had had a strong statement of purpose ready at the beginning of their presentation and had prepared answers for potential questions the women may ask, and atleast for the one that woman asked because that was the point of their whole presentation, things could have worked out differently. The way you answer questions and the words you choose can determine a lot, just that one word "secretarial" to an audience of woman engineers, caused an uprising. Another issue would probably be that they really should have thought about the larger context, did they really think a bunch of highly motivated woman in career dominated by men, would want to be those same men's secretaries?

1.)To me, Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, using words for one to attain a specific, usually immediate, goal. It's a way of convincing someone of an idea or thought. It’s an attempt at using language in a specific manner. Using Rhetoric, is a way of sizing up a problem or situation, evaluating all possible outcomes and the people involved and most importantly, solving the problem in a manner which makes everyone as happy as possible trying not to hurt anyone’s feelings.

2.) I do agree with this statement. I think his first problem was the way he approached the situation. He spoke to them as if they were not capable of doing anything but menial tasks, which offended them, and yes, this was do to “a lack of specific purpose.” Although, it was a lack of purpose, another contributing factor is that Walter only had small tasks in mind for them and did not consider using them for any larger purpose. Even though, they were capable, he only wanted them to do secretarial work. Being as Walter offended them in the beginning of the meeting, the rest of the meeting was doomed because the ladies now needed time to take in the fact that they were just insulted and offended.

1. Rhetoric to me means the ability to expand my thought process. It means trying to shape my outlook to the fullest extent. Rhetoric is persuasion, and when done the right way, it can change any amount of emotion. My definition is different in almost every way. I went for more of a broad and maybe unconventional description. It is similar because the idea of persuasion is included.
2. I do agree that Walters’ group lacked specific purpose. If their purpose was more clear and concise the outcome would have been different and everything else that was wrong with their presentation would have worked out. Another major problem was mentioning the secretarial duties. As soon as they put the women into this sexist category they lost their audience. Even if it was a mistake and no offense was to be implied, it confirmed the women’s’ preconceived idea that the men in their field didn’t take them seriously. If they had laid out their specific purpose and had been more prepared, their result might have been different.

I would (informally) define rhetoric as the art of audience persuasion, mainly through the use of language, and, simultaneously the analytical study of that art. So, "doing rhetoric," perhaps paradoxically, has both a performative dimension (the composition and transmission of the rhetorical texts themselves) meant to construct an argument and a systematic approach in which we disassemble the very same arguments and texts. It's analogous to the idea of "nutrition," in a sense, which means, on different levels, both eating right and the academic study of what is right to eat. All definition of rhetoric vary, of course, but the broad (and usually implicit) agreement is that we are talking about methods of persuasion that are non-coercive. Punching someone in the face to achieve an end is, by broad agreement, not a rhetorical act. The most succinct description from the excerpt, "attention to the relations among speechmaker, audience, and text," seems to sum up these elements, while leaving the idea of both performance and study implied, rather than stated, as in my much longer description. But theirs gets the job done, as the term is one that resists easy definition, and one that often suffers from attempts to define it too precisely. It's a bit like "paradigm" in science; it seems to be used serviceably without anyone being able to give a final definition. But language is like that.

The biggest problem Walter's group encountered, I suspect, was not the lack of a purpose, which, after all, they had (to include women in the group). It was instead to approach the task selfishly (unintentionally, as is usually the case), and think mainly in terms of what was in it for them. They failed to anticipate a hard sell, and, apparently, assumed that the SWE would be so flattered with the invitation that all of them would leap straight on board. They made the error that a lot of rhetors make, assuming that the project would sell itself, and failed to consider the needs of a particular audience (women in a mostly-male school and profession). This inattention demonstrates, negatively, one of the rhetors most important tasks: seeing the text from the perspective of the audience.