Word 112

Rhetorical Analysis Revision

First, I would like to thank Matthew and William for taking the time to carefully review my rhetorical analysis. I have received very developed feedback about how to properly identify my stakeholder, Karin Kemper. By reading and listening to their perspectives, I recognize the confusion that Tobblie Effowe is easily misunderstood as a stakeholder. To fix this, I plan to explain who Karin Kemper is in the introductory paragraph. I also plan to add phrases that describe how she used the video to persuade the audience using a pathos centric argument. Another way I will make a distinction between Karin Kemper and Tobblie Effowe will be tp properly identify Effowe’s role in the video. He is a firsthand resident of the tragedy-stricken coastline of West Africa. Kemper uses this man’s experiences that she pulled from the video to convey to the audience that this is a real-world problem that must be dealt with.

Another confusing portion of the rhetorical analysis was the video. I plan to explain more about what exactly the video is and how it pertains to the stakeholder’s blog. This can be done by referring to the actual title of the video instead of just saying “the video.” I can also cite the video when I refer to it. This will also help show that the video on coastal climate change is a second artifact instead of just part of one large artifact.

There are also many minor changes that I plan to add before the final draft. I plan to add better transitions in the body paragraphs. I also intend to clarify how Karin Kemper’s logos appeals contribute to her overarching goal to the audience.