Various Rhetorical Positions and Different Types of Evidence CP Project Writing Assignment Help

(/0x4*br />

Like the CP Project, the main assignment here is a multi-modal composition that uses various rhetorical positions and different types of evidence to make arguments. This one, however, is a bit different from the first in that over the course of these next few weeks, as you research and evaluate various sources, and as you draft, craft and organize your thoughts and evidence, you will at some point have to make a decision to become an advocate for solutions to your central problem in at least one of the following three ways: 1) you might advocate for one or more specific solutions to the significant and current political/social/cultural problem that sits at the center of your focus; 2) you might locate the next steps to potentially solving your project’s central problem; or, 3) you might argue for why the current solutions do not work and leave your readers with questions about possible next steps. In other words, your arguments for advocating solutions in combination with the analytical reasons you provide for why you have chosen to focus on particular solutions will after weeks and weeks of diligent engagement become a richly-textured thesis statement, one that deepens your articulation of the problem at hand and argues for convincing for ways to move forward.

When we think of the act of advocating and when we imagine a person or an organization who is an advocate for a cause, we think of strongly held opinions delivered with intensity from a rhetorical position that appears unshakable, deeply confident in the ethical rightness of its arguments and the accuracy of its knowledge. If we look at advocacy in such ways, we can understand why it takes time to become a convincing advocate, and that advocacy, even when it is delivered in the form of a thesis-driven composition, is a form of argumentation that can be quite different from the balanced arguments we often think of as academic writing even if it is as rigorous in its presentation of evidence.

This is not to say that academic writers are not advocates. They are, and over the course of this project, you will become such an advocate—one who uses academic research and methods to deliver persuasive arguments convincingly to a public of one’s peers. Academic writers in many disciplines often write with the purpose of advocating for solutions to political/social/cultural/environmental problems. When they do so, they are expected to consider and present positions that run against theirs in various ways – call them counter arguments – in order to meet the expectations of their academic audience. They must demonstrate their mastery of established arguments and knowledge in areas of discourse and recognize the legitimacy of other perspectives, even if the author seeks ultimately to dismiss them.

In the realm of public advocacy, arguments and persuasion can look, feel, and sound quite different. Public advocates deliver strong and impassioned arguments by undermining counter arguments. They do so by choice and with knowledge about the various perspectives and pieces of evidence that may potentially undermine their case. When putting forth arguments in academic or public settings, the most convincing advocates do not simply put forward solutions without first comprehending the informed debates in which these solutions are situated. Rather, successful advocates draw from a deep well of knowledge when carefully selecting the evidence and rhetorical appeals that will make their case about how to address the profound social problems they put before their audiences.

This assignment challenges you to become that strong advocate, one who delivers convincing solutions to a current and pressing political/social/cultural problem. You cannot, in all likelihood, be this advocate at the beginning of the project. You will need to spend time researching and evaluating sources; you will need to explore various arguments and perspectives as you write proposals and drafts. At some point, however, after deepening your knowledge and maybe even after writing a full draft or two, you will need to choose a position to advocate.

Sources & Citations:

You should use at least 10 sources beyond the sources you’ve been assigned in class or used in your first essay. At least four of these sources need to be scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. Use the MLA system for citing your sources.

Advocacy Composition: Graded Submission

(Written portion of Draft 2: 2500 words minimum including notes and in-text citations but not bibliography, multimodal. You should attach your Working Annotated Bibliography to your document and after the works cited page.)

and for annotated bibliography. here is it’s prompt. please note, this is actually two assignment, one is to edit AP draft 2 and one is to write the annotated bibliography.

2) For each source: Explain who the author is, including their credentials, field of study, and any other relevant information that can help us understand where they’re coming from.

3) For each source analyze and explain the genre of the source (e.g. scholarly peer reviewed article, newspaper article, chapter in a peer reviewed book, messageboard, etc.) What type of information and style of presentation is characteristic of this genre? How does the author establish credibility, or expertise, in this genre?

4) For each source: In 100-200 words, summarize the source’s thesis and main supporting arguments. Remember to avoid including “fluff” arguments!

5) For each source: generate a list of 4-6 keywords from the source. In other words, what key terms would you use to find this source online?

6) For each source: In 100-200 words, describe how this source might be useful as research. Were there any terms or concepts in the article that you didn’t understand? Were there specific people, groups, or policies you weren’t familiar with? If you decided to investigate this topic further, what terms, concepts, people, groups, or policies would you need to research further in order to better understand the issue?

7) How are these sources related (beyond discussing the same topic)? Do they use the same key terms, cite the same sources, analyze the same particular events, etc.? Do they agree with each other on the topic, or do they disagree (or both)? How do they agree or disagree, and on what points? Do they cite each other? If so, summarize their conversation. If not, how do you think they might respond to each other if they were having a conversation?