Ch 7 & Ch 9: Analyzing Rhetorically + Ethos

Analyze the how, not the what

The single hardest shift across both chapters is analyzing how a text argues — and how it builds character — rather than whether you agree with its position. Everything else builds on that.

What today reads

Planner note 596 is two whole chapters: Chapter 7 on analyzing a text rhetorically, and Chapter 9 on ethos. Read Ch 7 first — it gives you the analysis frame; Ch 9 then fills in one of the appeals you'll analyze.

What today reads (2)

They connect on purpose. Ch 9 maps ethos onto Ch 7's textual-vs-contextual split, so keep one framework across both readings instead of treating them as separate.

Ch 7: analyze the how, not the what

The chapter opens with Jon Stewart on Crossfire critiquing how the hosts argued, not their politics. That is the whole move of rhetorical analysis: you examine how a text works as rhetoric — whether and why it is effective for its audience — rather than debating the topic yourself.

Ch 7: analyze the how, not the what (2)

The hardest shift in the chapter: set your own opinion of the topic aside and look at the rhetor's choices. "Effective" is never abstract — a text is effective (or not) for a specific audience in a specific situation.

The features of a rhetorical analysis

A rhetorical analysis is interpretive and thesis-driven: you make an arguable claim about effectiveness and support it with textual evidence and reasoning. The chapter's image is a shish kebab — the thesis is the skewer that runs through and holds every paragraph together.

The features of a rhetorical analysis (2)

Test your thesis by asking whether a reasonable person could disagree. If not, it is a summary, not a claim. Then push past mechanics to the "so what?" — why the analysis matters for how arguments work.

Textual vs. contextual, and the 'so what'

Textual analysis looks at choices inside the text — credibility bids, appeals to reasoning or emotion, arrangement. Contextual analysis looks at the surrounding situation — timing (kairos), forum, other texts, the rhetor's prior reputation. Strong analyses touch both but usually lean one way, depending on what's most interesting about the text.

Textual vs. contextual, and the 'so what' (2)

Treat the concepts in later chapters (ethos, kairos, logos, pathos) as a toolkit to select from, not a checklist to exhaust. Analysis is iterative: expect to re-read and revise a working thesis.

Ch 9: ethos is the audience's judgment

Ethos is one of the three appeals, and the chapter's key correction is that ethos is the audience's assessment of a rhetor's character — how they are perceived — not simply who they "really" are or their actual credentials.

Ch 9: ethos is the audience's judgment (2)

That is why ethos can be built, and why it can vary by audience. It is also why credibility must be interrogated, not assumed: the chapter warns that fake-news sites and slick conspiracy videos use polish to fake it.

Situated vs. invented ethos

Situated ethos is the reputation a rhetor carries into a text before the audience reads a word — and it maps onto Ch 7's contextual analysis. Invented ethos is the character built inside the text through deliberate choices — and it maps onto textual analysis.

Situated vs. invented ethos (2)

Situated ethos is not fixed: the same rhetor can hold positive, negative, or no reputation with different audiences and at different times. Students start with little situated ethos, so most of your persuasive ground has to be invented.

Three ways to invent ethos

Invented ethos has three routes. Credibility answers "can I trust their knowledge?" — credentials, experience, evidence, professional presentation. Goodwill answers "do they share my values?" — shared values, fair treatment of opponents, honorable motives. Reasonableness answers "do they weigh things fairly?" — weighing alternatives and answering counterarguments calmly.

Three ways to invent ethos (2)

Reasonableness overlaps with logos, so a single move can serve more than one appeal — the appeals aren't siloed. When you analyze, name the move and say how the intended audience is meant to judge it.

When you've finished both chapters

Take the checkpoint: four short questions across both chapters and one essay, three tries each. The essay asks you to analyze how a rhetor builds ethos, using Ch 7's textual/contextual frame.

When you've finished both chapters (2)

Nothing here goes to the course grade. If a short answer won't come, reread that section rather than inventing a rule the chapters don't use.

Final checklist

Tick these off as you go. Saved in this browser.

• I can say what a rhetorical analysis does and how it differs from taking a side.
• I can name the features of a rhetorical analysis, including the 'so what.'
• I can tell textual analysis from contextual analysis.
• I can distinguish situated from invented ethos and sort a move into credibility, goodwill, or reasonableness.
• I finished the checkpoint.