Warning: Constant FS_CHMOD_DIR already defined in /home/digitalw/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org/WeeklyWriting/wp-config.php on line 101

Warning: Constant FS_CHMOD_FILE already defined in /home/digitalw/rhetoricofgaming.digitalwcu.org/WeeklyWriting/wp-config.php on line 101
Rhetorical Analyses – Page 2 – Weekly Writing for Rhetoric of Gaming F2017

Rhetorical Analysis 1: Nature Valley

Evan Cowgill

ENG 400

Dr. Cream

4 September 2017

Rhetorical Analysis: Nature Valley Commercial

Link for Reference: https://youtu.be/1XDVDyDJ3s0

      This commercial for Nature Valley’s snack bars, aptly entitled “Would your kids respond in the same way as these kids? Raises an interesting” by the YouTube user who posted it, argues that humanity is losing touch with nature (The Great Outdoors) as each generation of kids chooses their leisure-time activities.  Nature Valley claims that modern technology is to blame for this phenomenon.

      Delicately dramatic music breathes emotion into the audio’s background as Nature Valley showcases a series of elderly people answering the question of what they did for fun during their childhood.  Their answers are stories full of wonder and excitement, fishing and fending off bears.  Then, abruptly (even menacingly), the music stops as a sample of today’s children respond to the question with non-anecdotal answers like video games, texting, and somehow e-mail.  The elderly and oh-so-wise stars of the commercial shoot knowing glances at the camera as the children’s parents cry and express their fear for the future.  Then, the music returns — this time, more hopeful — as Nature Valley connects their brand of snack bar to one simple solution: Rediscover the Joy of Nature.  Be sure to try their newest flavor, Appeal to Tradition.

Weekly Rhetorical Analysis

Isabela Granic excels in her article “The Benefits of Playing Video Games” by defending common arguments against video games with research, statistics and facts. Certain platitudes such as “Video games promote laziness in children” are proven wrong by citing controlled research surrounding video games. This challenges the so-called common knowledge about video games with actual and proven facts. A factor that makes the article seem more modern and reliable is that the research that’s sited utilizes games such as Halo and Call of Duty. Both franchises have had installments in the last two years keeping the collected data fresh and up to date. As if more direct evidence was needed for the benefits of video games, Granic cites certain video games that have the primary purpose of teaching in a more entertaining manner; this concept is called “gamification”. A game called Re-Mission is a game utilized to teach child cancer patients about their illness. By citing impactful, intriguing, and emotional citations throughout the article, Granic teaches the reader in a simply understandable manner about the benefits of video games.

Granic, Isabela, et al. “The Benefits of Playing Video Games.” American Psychologist, vol. 69, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 66-78. EBSCOhost. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=2353a274-0752-41cd-84ad-72068349ea16%40sessionmgr4006

Rhetorical Analysis 1 – 9/4

In Tania Smith’s article title, “What is Rhetoric”, helps define the word ‘rhetoric’ in the simplest terms. As the article continues on from her initial base work of defining rhetoric, she explores the facets and ways in which everybody directly and or indirectly uses. Smith notes that rhetoric must be defined by its “function, not by a communication medium, topic, or social location.” Smith does a proficient job at properally explaining the basis to that of rhetorical communication whether that be writing, proclaiming a speech, seeing a poster, or even sending out a tweet to your 500 followers. Although Smith does not delve to deep into the details of rhetoric’s history and the ins and outs of the different discourses and aspects of rhetoric, she is able to very effectively lay-out the framework of rhetoric in layman’s terms.

When asked to rhetorically analyze an underlining function of Smith’s article, I believe she’s essentially laying a base for the reader to go on and further explore the function of rhetoric in everyday life situations. She even ends the article with a Wiki link to rhetoric and will continuously revisit the article to answer questions down in the comment section.

Maxwell Randolph

Rhetorical Analysis 1

Smith uses words and phrases such as, “most people, everyday, every topic” to emphasize how much we use rhetoric without even realizing it. This causes the reader to recall times and instances they used their communication skills to convey information or persuade in their own way. She also uses everyday functions of today’s society such as social media, music and more to emphasize the everyday use and importance of rhetoric. She uses these many examples to say that rhetoric is broad in it’s definition, but unique in that it is meticulous on what it’s function is in a certain setting.

Smith uses her own communication skills to convey what rhetoric is. Therefore, does everyone’s definition of rhetoric differ because of our own way of communicating and explaining things to others? Some may say rhetoric is how people use words to convey and persuade; however, Smith opens up the definition to visuals and how they are also used to convey and persuade.

Rhetorical Analysis Week 1

The other day friends of mine made me play Overwatch with them. It is a first person shooter game and each round you have certain objectives, but the main point of the game is kill or be killed. I have only played the online multiplayer version so I do not know if there is a story mode. My view of the game is that you just have to kill everyone so that they don’t kill you that as a lesson on society could be quite scary. I am curious to see how other players of the game would interpret the rhetoric of it. I prefer to play games that have some sort of story to tell, but Overwatch doesn’t seem to have that. The characters are very complex but there isn’t a story so it make it to me seem as though it is o, but Overwatch doesn’t seem to have that. The characters are very complex but there isn’t a story so it to me seem as though it is only for entertainment purposes. I know it can’t be for purely entertainment so I would like to see what other people think about the rhetoric within Overwatch and if it has a deeper societal meaning.

Rhetorical Analysis 9/4

Simple and to the point, Smith’s definition of rhetoric is one that every reader can understand. However, as her text progresses, its purpose shifts and expands to include a variety of different views on rhetoric. By offering varying opinions on the topic, it seems as though Smith wants to provide us with its many different facets so that we may come to our own conclusions and definitions…but that is not necessarily what she is doing. What Smith communicates is her belief that rhetoric, in its best form, “enhances” “truth” and “beauty.” She throws this in, a little more than halfway down the page, and then sandwiches it under bullet points headed by words like “deny” and “defame.” But this statement is neither denial or defamation of rhetoric, it exemplifies the beauty of it. Therefore, I think that at the heart of her argument, Smith uses our emotions to persuade us into believing, I gather, what she believes is the best form and function of rhetoric: one which “enhances” “truth” and “beauty.” She wants the reader to believe this too, as she strategically places it at the center of her text without explicitly placing it in her defintion.

Hayley Annino

Rhetorical Analysis 1 9/4

Smith’s definition of rhetoric functions as a way of denying and defaming those who she claims “deny and defame [rhetoric]”, implying that such individuals that are anti-rhetoric are hypocritical, and use rhetoric the most. In implying this, Smith argues that anti-rhetoricians are the ones that use rhetoric in the most effective fashion. The almost oxymoronic nature of rhetoric is never overtly mentioned by Smith, but is implied through the connection of two of her main points in her article.

When Smith mentions the most effective rhetoric being that which is not consciously applied, it is directly related to the type of people she discusses when she says that people who are against rhetoric use it all the time. Although Smith does not have these ideas directly placed next to each other in her article, simple logic allows readers to draw the conclusion that she see’s rhetoric as counterproductive to those who view it in a negative light.

If this is true that those who are against rhetoric can be the most effective at using it, that then must mean that those who are conscious of their use will be far less effective, at least if going by what Smith has presented in this article.

-Elliott Bennett

css.php