The assignment after reading Murphy

Here (http://www.nt.armstrong.edu/adanalysis2005.htm)  is the link to Dr. Armstrong's students' ad analyses.

Assignment: Read all the analyses, identify the best and the worst ones, and write a page where you give good reasons for why the worst is the worst and the best is the best.   You have to be specific!  You're not supposed to rank the ads themselves, of course, but only the students' short papers about the ads.  You're trying to determine what good analysis looks like.

FYI and BTW, I also think this ad analysis is pretty strong (but you can't rank it 'cause it's from the wrong collection): http://www.nt.armstrong.edu/Raa06SR.html

By the way, I revised by "how to write a rhetorical analysis" based on your constructive criticism.  Thanks.  It's on the elearing site, called "RhetAnalysis2 (new)."  Thoughts??

These are some things I thought were effective from today's class.  I saw people

• annotate heavily with questions and comments
• disagree (quite respectfully) with me and others
• confirm and emphasize the ideas of another students
• take educated guesses about what something might mean
• question whether there are contradictions built into a claim
• workshop my paper by identifying specific passages, pointing out strengths, and suggesting changes
• write on other people's papers
• ask practical questions
• ask about the writing challenge of developing a paper past the one-page point

Questions?  Office hours is the best way to get them answered.  I'm in by 9:00 on Wednesday (hours are 9-11:30, a slot I haven't yet changed on the syllabus).  Office phone: 753-5945.