rhetorical analysis memorandum

to:Dr. watt

from:John Student

subject:Rhetorical Analysis of sample documents

date:10/07/2018

general

I received various samples that originated from Integrated Project Management Co. Inc. (IPM) of Burr Ridge, IL. Included are aFunding Request Justification, a Project Review Verification, and two progress reports. Details of two separate projects IPM did for Stepan Company (location unknown) are covered within these documents. Also included in the document samples is a monthly report from Lilly. As an overall impression, the documents from IPM are generally much more readable and contain more information as to the documents’ focus and origin.

conventions

The easiest qualities of the documents to pick out are the conventions present in them. First I will discuss the IPM documents since I have several of them to compare. All of the IPM documents except for one are on the same company stationary. One of the progress reports is on different company stationary which could reflect a new stationary adoption by the company as opposed to a digress from the normal stationary. If this is not the case, then why the progress report is on different stationary is unknown. At the end of each document is also an apparent path name reference indicating the electronic location of the document. Presumably, the documents are on the computer of the documents’ authors since the paths lack computer specification and sometimes drive letters. Located near the top of the documents is also project reference information – company, AFE#, EF# - that immediately shows the overall concern of the document.

The report style documents (Funding Request and Project Review) have several common attributes. Very general headings are present followed by bulleted list and paragraphs where necessary. The Project Review has a very extensive bulleted list under “Agenda Items” which spans more than three pages. Sub-headings could have been used effectively to improve readability of this section. The bullets are constructed with either fragments (for definite lists) or using complete sentence structure as in the agenda section.

The IPM progress reports are both of very similar style with the exception of the stationary. It is apparent that the progress reports are to be very concise with minimal detail beyond general tasks and important dates. After the initial headings, the report is clearly separated into four sections: financial statement, safety statement, task accomplished during the reporting period, and the task to be accomplished in the next reporting period. One reporting period consists of two full weeks from Monday to the second following Sunday.

The monthly report from Lilly is done very differently. The document is lacking even basic headers of the company the document has originated from. The document is only known to me to come from Lilly by the hand-written green-ink “Lilly” at the top of the document (presumably by Dr. Watt). Of course, it is also possible that this is how the document was given to Rose from Lilly. The report looks to be an Excel style template with blocks to fill be filled in with appropriate information according to the headings. Complete sentences are nonexistent. The “Action Plans” section benefits from the block style by making it easy to see due dates and statuses of various tasks though the task itself is not easily scannable.

audience and exigence

In all documents, it is assumed that the audience has extensive knowledge of the topic and past occurrences. With the exception of the funding request, most of the documents do not seem to be trying to convince the reader that they need to read the rest of the document. Rather, the documents are there to be read by those seeking the specific information contained in it. The funding request is a bit different because it must show just cause for extending the budget. This is done very well by simple statements of fact covering where the extra money had already been spent and why.

Numerous acronyms are used throughout each document and are usually undefined. The funding request is obviously written to persons above the author (as would be expected). The information is presented in a very straight forward and factual (explicitly) manner, showing what needs to still be done and what it will cost to do it. The progress reports do not seem to be specifically targeted, as they are more there for documentation of the project and a quick update. The Project Review covers a wide range of topics involved with the project. The document is written nearly two months after the meeting it references in the headings, so it must not be critical to the project. It seems to be more of a very detailed summary project’s past along with a statement of recommended future repairs based on the information presented earlier in the document.

ehtos, logos, pathos

The IPM documents are written in a conversational way that connects the author and readers. Actual identification of the author is not revealed till the end of the document or not explicitly at all in the case of the progress reports. It could be inferred that the progress reports are written by the project manager, since his initials appear with the file path, if the reader did not already know who the author was. In the Lilly progress report, the author element is not very prevalent. This likely is a consequence of the fill-in-the-blank style form that is used. In one section though, “Roadblocks or Issues Preventing Progress”, the response is “none, other than having enough time to do everything”. This struck me as being very informal and out of place with the documents. It is possible the author’s frustration with the project timetable is showing through here. The statement seems to detract from the author’s credibility.

The subject quality of the articles, Logos, varies quite a bit. The funding request and project review use Logos very effectively with extensive factual information about the subject. It would be hard to question any of the recommendations because they are well supported with numerous facts. The progress reports do not rely on Logos as much. The Lilly report has a bit more detail on the subject than IPM’s, but is still far from utilizing Logos like the funding request and project review.

The best example of Pathos is the funding request. The document brings up several concerns for how the project impacts the facility and how it’s important for the repairs to be done before the peak use time in the spring and summer. If the tower would fail, there could be a lot of lost revenue for the company as a result. So, it is of prime importance that the repairs be completed in time.

conclusions

In general, the IPM documents were much easier to read. Though, other documents from Lilly could also be much better than the one presented. The progress report presented is difficult to follow and understand what it is about. The IPM documents all seemed consistent with each other with no glaring differences.

Being able to analyze samples will be a useful skill for the future. Over this past summer when I interned at Belden Wire and Cable Company, I had to write several memo-type reports. I was not given samples to go off of, but I also did not know to specifically ask for them. Instead, I had to determine what format to use on my own. The reports I did turn in were well received by my supervisor, and he even praised me on the writing quality. Apparently, the documents were close enough to what he was looking for. In the future, I intend to ask for samples to guide me when asked write such documents, but it is good to know that I have a good natural starting point.

1