EMULATION THROUGH ANALYSIS: CLASSIFICATION AND DIVISION

Text: The Ways We Lie

Author: Stephanie Ericsson

Rhetorical Vivisection

SOAPSTONE BREAKDOWN

  • What is the subject of this essay?
  • What is the immediate occasion, as described in the text?
  • What is the more general occasion?
  • Who is the audience here?
  • Identify direct addresses or inclusive language.
  • What are a few of Ericsson’s purposes?
  • Is this an argument of fact, value, policy, or some combination of the three?
  • Where do you see her articulate a thesis?
  • Describe the speaker of this piece.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

Introduction

  • How many engaging details does Ericsson pack into the first paragraph? What are they?
  • Describe the movement from the first sentence of paragraph 1(about the bank)into the first sentence of paragraph 3.
  • How does Ericsson avoid making the “callback” in paragraph 4 — the return to her initial series of examples — sound repetitious?
  • What is the nature of the rhetorical questions in paragraphs 5 and 6?
  • I.e., how does the rest of the essay seem to answer these questions?
  • Is the use of Webster’s definition an effective appeal to ethos, a cheap creation of context, or something else?

The White Lie

  • Explain the epigraph’s meaning, including the irony of the statement.
  • What is the dimension added by the epigraph?
  • How does the example in paragraph 2 demonstrate the idea of “not…so cut-and-dried”?

Facades

  • What is the allusion in the epigraph?
  • What dimension does it add to this categorical exploration?
  • Do we all wear facades, or is this a hasty generalization?
  • What is the dichotomy set up here between Ericsson — in her pajamas — and the “former friend” of paragraph 2?
  • What is the emerging argument about lying – the argument of value – that is sounded again with the “destructive” complaint in paragraph 2?
  • Hint: It starts with paragraph 5 in the introduction, and it is implied in the “unable to move on to a new life” in paragraph 2 of The White Lie.
  • Explain the stylistic strength of the last sentence of paragraph 2.

Ignoring the Plain Facts

  • What does Ericsson intend this epigraph to add to the subsequent discussion?
  • What is the appeal to pathos in paragraph 1?
  • Where does Ericsson allude back to the definitions from Webster’s? To what effect?
  • What other kind of “ignoring the facts” (other than the deliberate deception exemplified by the church) is Ericsson suggesting?

Deflecting

  • The technical term for the logical fallacy in the epigraph is ad hominem. Look up this term and explain how the epigraph is an example.
  • What dimension does it add to Ericsson’s explanation of deflecting?
  • There are three subtypes of deflection. What is the first?
  • What does the Clarence Thomas example illustrate?
  • What is the “fighting technique” described in paragraph 3?
  • What does Ericsson imply about “disputes between men and women” here?

Omission

  • How is “cruelest” (from the epigraph) defined in the ensuing four paragraphs?
  • Where is the line between harmless and harmful for Ericsson in paragraph 1?
  • What conclusion does Ericsson draw in paragraphs 2-4 about the omission of Lilith?
  • Is this an appeal to ethos to defend her position against lying?How so?
  • Many of you were unaware of the story of Lilith.How might this prove her point?

Stereotypes and Clichés

  • Translate the epigraph. What does it add to the discussion?
  • How is a stereotype different from a lie of omission?
  • How do stereotypes “destroy curiosity”?
  • How do stereotypes lead to “identity [being] obliterated”?

Groupthink

  • What literary work should we think of when we see “groupthink,” and what meaning does this detail add to the ensuing section?
  • What does “the light” refer to in the epigraph?
  • How does the Pearl Harbor example fit the definition given in paragraph 1?
  • Why does Ericsson cite this “textbook example of groupthink” in particular?

Out-and-Out Lies

  • Explain the Oscar Wilde epigraph and its relevant irony.
  • What does Ericsson mean by saying she “can trust the bald-faced lie”? How does she define “trust”?
  • What is implied would replace “floating anxiety” in a world comprised of only bald-faced lies?

Dismissal

  • What dimension does the epigraph provide to this discussion?
  • Why does Ericsson focus on children in the second paragraph?
  • Explain the connection between dismissal and schizophrenia.
  • What are “necessary” dismissals?
  • How does Ericsson set up a comparative assertion of value—the idea of “run[ning] the gamut”?

Delusion

  • What is Ericsson’s claim about “function[ing] on a day-to-day level”?
  • What does she argue here about the “status quo”?
  • What other delusions do we suffer in order to survive?

Conclusion

  • How does this epigraph tie into the idea of “daily machinery” raised in paragraph 1?
  • Unpack the simile that ends paragraph 1.
  • How does the sequence of rhetorical questions function in paragraph 2?What do these questions have in common?
  • How does the final paragraph answer those questions?
  • How does the final paragraph also tie back to the beginning of the essay?
  • What is the rhetorical effect of framing the essay in this way?

MR. EURE | LANGUAGE AND COMPOSITION