Carolina Gonzalez

October 2, 2017
Rhetorical Analysis Outline

Part 1

Exigence- The essay I wrote in English 1 was written with the purpose to depict an article and to
reassure myself and my former professor that I clearly understood the article I chose to rhetori-
cally analyze. The reason behind my writing was to address the purpose and to depict the ele-
ments the author of the article utilized to persuade the audience. Also, in my piece of writing, I
stated whether the authors use of elements worked on myself and whether I was persuaded or
not and why.

Context- The overall context of my writing is academic and studential. As a student, I am very
limited to certain experiences and knowledge that would give my paper a different taste and
stronger language. What gave rise to this paper was analyzing and depicting every element that
made the article a persuasive one, and then clearly describing each and every one of those ele-
ments.

Constraints- When developing my rhetorical analysis in my former English class, I faced a few
constraints that put a halt on my ideas. To begin with, I am not very assimilated with rhetorically
analyzing a text and then having to write about it. I was not familiar or even good at writing in an
impersonal style. I usually like inputting my personal opinion, but I could not do so in this writ-
ing.

Audience- When writing my rhetorical analysis, I was writing as if my professor were my in-
tended audience. For the most part, my professor was meant to read or use my writing; but my
fellow peers could have also read and used my writing towards their own writing.

Part 2

The major I have chosen is Nutrition (Natural Science)

After reading about the style of writing in my field, it is interpreted that the writing within the
major of natural science is straight to the point, short, and simple.
There is no humor, irony, or sarcasm because only facts and data are being stated, oness opin-
ion should not be including.
The writing is very concrete and not open to one or more interpretation.
The writing is separated into different sections- Abstract, Introduction, Experiment, Results/
Data, Discussion, and Conclusion. Many tables and figures are included to support the data and
ideas being presented in the writing.
 Some of the very unacceptable things within the writing of natural science are having numer-
ous and obvious misspelled words, being excessively redundant; never repeat what has already
been said.
It is very important of citing peer-reviewed journals and scholars books.
The main exigence of writing in the natural science expectations is to explore questions about
the physical universe and to hypothesize and experiment; explaining and providing data and
information about those hypothesis and experiments.
The context is of well-educated and experienced people in the major of natural science, prov-
ing and teaching others of what has been explored and discovered.
As perceived from the reading, the intended audience are other people within the natural sci-
ence major, professors, and those who are interested in the findings of the writer.

Part 3

The wring in part 1, Rhetorical Analysis, would for the most part not be considered a good
paper to turn into an instructor in the field of natural science.
The reason would be that the exigence of the writing presented on the first part is completely
distinct from the exigence of writing in the field of natural science.
- The purpose of writing in the field of natural science is to prove a scientific point and
to explain and provide evidence for that exploration. Also, the field requires many tables and fig-
ures for proof of those explorations. Whereas, the rhetorical analysis in part 1 provides no type of
table or figure as proof for anything and has nothing much to prove except for elements of the
author.
The field of natural science requires straight facts, no humor, sarcasm, or lively language;
which is something clearly presented in the writing of part 1.
- Although the writing in part 1 contains no personal opinion, humor and animated lan-
guage are held. In the field chosen, referring to oneself is not permitted. The writing is very
straight to the point, unlike the writing in the first part. An instructor in the field would not be
very fond of the writing presented in part one and would not at all be accepted.