The Precis + Drafting Paper 1: examples that Use Rifkin as Model
Melissa Watson & DRWS
Table of Contents
The Rhetorical Précis
Templates for the Rhetorical Précis
Student Model Paragraphs: Samples of the Rhetorical Précis
Paper 1: Sample Student Introduction Using Rifkin
Paper 1: Sample Student Discussion of Textual Organization
Paper 1: Sample Student Discussion of Strategies
The Rhetorical Précis
Overview: In order to concisely describe the argument and context an author presents in a text, academic writers sometimes use a format called the rhetorical précis. This form is a highly structured four-sentence paragraph that highlights the essential rhetorical elements in any text. The précis includes the name of the speaker/writer(s), the context or situation in which the text is delivered, the major assertion, the mode of development or support of the main idea, the stated and/or apparent purpose of the text, and the relationship between the writer(s) and the audience. The following is a breakdown of the information to include in each of the four sentences.
SENTENCE 1 – include the following:- the name of author,
- a phrase describing the author (optional),
- the type and title of work, the date of work (inserted in parentheses),
- a rhetorically accurate verb (such as “assert,” “argue,” “suggest,” “imply,” “claim,” etc.) that describes what the author is doing in the text,
- a THAT clause in which you state the major assertion (thesis statement/claim) of the author’s text.
Toni Morrison, a well-known scholar in the humanities, in her essay, “Disturbing Nurses and the Kindness of Sharks,” implies THAT racism in the United States has affected the craft and process of American novelists.
SENTENCE 2 : An explanation of how the author develops and/or supports the thesis (for instance, comparing and contrasting, defining, narrating, illustrating, defining, using humor or sarcasm, relating personal experience, depending on facts /statistics /opinion, etc.). Consider the author’s organization, use of evidence, and/or strategies used to construct his/her argument. Your explanation is usually presented in the same chronological order that the items of support are presented in the work. / EXAMPLE:
Morrison supports her implication by describing how Ernest Hemingway writes about black characters and by illustrating his strategies for plot development seen within his novels and short stories.
SENTENCE 3: A statement of the author’s apparent purpose, followed by an IN ORDER TO phrase in which you explain what the author wants the audience to do or feel as a result of reading the work. / EXAMPLE:
Her purpose is to make her readers aware of the cruel reality of racism underlying some of the greatest works of American literature IN ORDER TO help them examine the far-reaching effects racism has not only on those discriminated against but also on those who discriminate.
SENTENCE 4: A description of the intended audience and the relationship the author establishes with the audience. / EXAMPLE:
She establishes a formal and highly analytical tone with her audience of racially-mixed, theoretically-sophisticated readers and critical interpreters of American literature.
Templates for the Rhetorical Précis
Provided below are three templates you can refer to when using the rhetorical précis form. You should use these for guidance, but use your best judgment about how to form sentences appropriate to the text and/or author you write about.
- (Author’s credentials), (author’s first and last name), in his/her (type of text), (title of text), published in (publishing info), addresses the topic of (topic of text)and argues that (argument).
- S/he supports this claim by______, then______, and finally______.
- (Author’s last name)’s purpose is to (author’s purpose in writing) in order to (change in reader/society the author wants to achieve).
- He/she adopts a(n) ______tone for his/her audience, the readers of (publication)and others interested in the topic of______.
- In the (type of text), (title of text) ((year)), author (author’s first and last name), (author’s credentials), asserts that (argument) and suggests (explanation of sub-claims or resolution).
- S/he backs up this claim by doing the following: first, s/he ; next, s/he ; last, s/he .
- (Author’s last name) appears to write in hopes of (author’s purpose in writing) in order to (change in reader/society the author wants to achieve.
- Because of the author’s tone,it seems as if s/he writes for a and audience.
- In his/her (type of text) (title of text) ((year)), (author’s credentials) (author’s first and last name) asserts that (argument) by addressing , , and .
- By supplying the reader with information aboutand, (author’s last name) builds his/her claims about .
- (Author’s name) wishes to convey to readers the importance of (author’s purpose in writing) in order to (change in reader/society the author wants to achieve).
- The author’s audience likely consists of those interested in as is evident through his/her references to and ; s/he addresses readers with a tone thatis and .
Student Model Paragraphs:Samples of the Rhetorical Précis
[1] Writer and Economist, Jeremy Rifkin in his Editorial column, “A Change of Heart about Animals, published in September 1, 2003, addresses the topic of Animal Rights and behavior and argues that animals should be treated and viewed with more respect since each individual animal is so closely related to us humans. [2] He constructs this claim by introducing the idea that animals feel the same feelings that humans feel, presenting evidence that proves the animals’ behaviors to be like humans, then questioning our perceptions of animals, and challenging his readers to expand our perception and empathy to our fellow creatures. [3] Rifkin’s purpose is to illustrate the way animal behavior is similar to human behavior in order to persuade his audience to reevaluate their perception of animals and more than that, treat them better. [4] He adopts a persuasive, emotional, and unbiased tone for his audience, the readers of the Los Angeles Times and others interested in the topic of human-like animal behavior.
[1] Earl Shorris, Founder and Chairman of the Advisory Board for The Clemente Course in the Humanities, in his article, “On the Uses of Liberal Education: As a Weapon in the Hands of the Restless Poor” (1997), claims that through the teaching of humanities the poor will be able to free themselves from the forces society has on them. [2] To support his argument, Shorris does the following: first, in a narrative form he briefly introduces his background and provides information about the current study; second, he describes his research and explains how he met a woman in a correctional facility that influenced his idea for the research study; third, he describes his plan/methodology and the participants that form part of the study; and last, he explains the happenings and outcome of his study. [3] In order to help the poor reach their fullest potential through social politics and exposure of the teachings of humanities, the author wishes to convey for readers that the humanities are an essential part of life. [4] Shorris establishes an educated and inspiring article meant for educators and economically disadvantaged persons.
[1] Scholars in the field of behavior science, L. Rowell Huesmann and Jessica Moise, in their essay “Media Violence: A Demonstrated Public Health Threat to Children” (June 1996), argue that exposure to media violence stimulates aggression in children and that children should be protected from media violence. [2] The authors support their claim by making an analogy to the issue of lung cancer and cigarettes, by refuting claims made by Dr. Freedman, by providing research results that show a connection between media violence and behavior, and by describing the process of desensitization. [3] Their purpose is to make their readers aware that there is a connection between media violence and violence seen in children in order to protect all children from future violence. [4] The authors use a serious and academic tone to establish a reasoned, objective attitude toward their audience of people who are involved in academics and research, especially those concerned with behavior science and government regulations.
Paper 1: Sample Student Introduction Using Rifkin
See the student example paragraph below introducing both Rifkin’s text as well as the student’s purpose for writing the essay. Notice that the student is careful to introduce all aspects of the rhetorical situation: context (situation the author writes for), author (name, background, qualifications), text (genre, publication, year), purpose (reason for writing), and audience (demographic/population the author appears to write for). In order to address the prompt for Project 1, the student is also careful to include an overview of the author’s project and argument. Last, the student provides a purpose statement which gives “purpose” to his/her essay as well as outlines the organization of his/her discussion that follows.
For many years activists arguing against inhumane treatment of animals have based their arguments on research investigating the negative effects imprinted on these creatures due to poor human conduct and handling. In response to this issue, Jeremy Rifkin writes "A Change of Heart about Animals," a 2003 editorial in the Los Angeles Times. Rifkin is a well-known American economist and author of more than 15 books using theories of science and economics to examine how the economy, society, and the environment interact and transform one another. In his article, Rifkin challenges previously believed notions about human’s treatment of animals and calls attention to this issue by revealing new research that calls into question many of the boundaries commonly thought to exist between humans and other animals. As a consequence of these findings, Rifkin argues that humans should expand their empathy for animals and treat them better. Rifkin reasons that because animals can make tools, develop sophisticated language skills, experience self-awareness, and mourn the dead, they should be shown the same empathy and treated the same way as humans. To support this argument he points to numerous studies conducted by popular fast food chains and prominent universities that focus on animals’ emotions, cognitive abilities, social behaviors, and learned behaviors. Based on this authoritative evidence, the author seems to suggest that the U.S. is heading towards treating animals differently. As is evident from the publication and Rifkin’s focus on human perceptions, Rifkin appears to write for the general population in the United States, especially those interested in social change, scientific research, and U.S. policies regarding animal rights. For the purposes of increasing readers’ critical awareness of the argument constructed by Rifkin, I will analyze his text by describing the author’s claims, his use of evidence, his textual organization, and some of the rhetorical strategies he employs.
Paper 1: Sample StudentDiscussion of Textual Organization
See the student example paragraph below discussing Rifkin’s strategyfor textual organization.
There are many successful moves to observe in this analysis:
- Notice that there are two paragraphs. Sometimes it is necessary to take one idea and extend your discussion for multiple paragraphs to ensure that your ideas are clear. Particularly, look at how much time is spent on commentary and analysis.
- Notice that much of the analysis is based on macro-charting, not micro-charting. An analysis on textual organization should not merely be a list of what each paragraph does. Imagine this: In paragraph 1, Rifkin does X. In paragraph 2, Rifkin does Y….In paragraph 15, Rifkin does Z. That simplistic kind of listing isn’t focused and can sound too mechanical. Be choosy about which aspects you wish to include in your analysis.
- Notice that this student doesn’t focus on rhetorical strategies. Because strategies are found within each section, the student could easily be tempted to discuss other rhetorical strategies that Rifkin employs in each paragraph. However, this student is careful to stick to his focus: a discussion of Rifkin’s textual organization.
- Notice how the student guides us through the analysis: s/he mentions actual paragraphs, provides specific topic sentences, and uses transitions and metacommentary.
The way Rifkin organizes his text likely lends to the overall appeal of his argument. Like most texts written in English, the argument can be analyzed as being delivered in three sections: an introduction where Rifkin contextualizes his topic and states his main claim (paragraphs 1-3); a body section where Rifkin provides evidence supporting his argument (paragraphs 4-14); and a conclusion where Rifkin questions the implications of the findings revealed in the previous section (paragraphs 15-16). In addition to this very general chunking of paragraphs, the smaller organization choices found within each section are telling of the author’s strategy for constructing his argument. Some of Rifkin’s rhetorical choices worth mentioning can be found in the second section, the section revealing supporting evidence. Anticipating that his audience might at first doubt his claim that animals are more like humans than commonly assumed, Rifkin is careful to provide evidence that is easier to accept early on, and then gradually reveals examples that could prove more risqué in later parts of this section. This way if his audience accepts the research presented first, they may also be more inclined to accept later studies that are harder to believe.
To exemplify Rifkin’s strategy for organizing his evidence, the different themes of evidence found in the second section will be presented and analyzed. First, paragraphs 4-5 are dedicated to explaining how pigs need social attention (from humans or other pigs) in order to maintain mental and physical health. Then, Rifkin describes the cognitive abilities of crows and gorillas, who, respectively, show signs of intelligence by making tools and by communicating through sign language (paragraphs 7-8). These examples won’t likely surprise readers too much: many of us have seen how depressed animals can get when they are alone, many of us can imagine how clever birds can be, and many of us have already heard about the language capabilities of gorillas. Next, however, in paragraphs 10-12 the author reveals some very human-like behaviors found in animals including findings on self-awareness in orangutans, grief in elephants, and brain chemistry of rats during play time. This seems to be an intentional organizational scheme of Rifkin. It’s likely no accident that research regarding orangutans using mirrors to adjust their sunglasses and studies showing how elephants mourn for the dead come after the examples on social needs and cognitive abilities of animals. These examples might be more challenging to believe if they were the first presented to readers. Furthermore, research suggesting that rats and humans experience similar neurochemical reactions in the brain while playing might be the most challenging for readers to accept, thus Rifkin places this example last. While readers may find it easier to align human behavior with orangutans and elephants, they may find it difficult to accept that rats share similar characteristics as humans. Rifkin consciously organizes the different examples in order to slowly accustom the audience to the controversial research he presents. The order that he places his evidence, then, appears to be highly strategic and calculated.
Paper 1: Sample StudentDiscussion of Strategies
See the student example paragraph below discussing Rifkin’s strategyof using animal names, thus appealing to pathos. Notice that the focus is on how the strategy helps build the author’s argument (how it works and why the audience is affected) and we do not see the discussion of pathos until the end.
One strategy Rifkin employs to build the argument that animals should be treated more like humans is his subtle use of animal names when introducing data. When he offers new research about the problem-solving abilities of New Caledonian crows, for example, Rifkin cleverly describes how “Abel, the more dominant male…stole Betty’s hook” in order to obtain a better feeding tool (Rifkin). Rifkin, of course, could have chosen to ignore the bird’s test-subject names – which in all likelihood, were arbitrarily assigned by lab technicians and remain of little importance to the conclusions of the experiment – but by including them he bestows a human quality to the animals beyond what the data suggests. He repeats this technique twice more to the same effect, once when introducing “Koko, the 300 pound gorilla,” who displays close-to-human intelligence and an impressive sign language vocabulary, and again when describing an “Orangutan named Chantek,” whose use of a mirror displays human-like self awareness (Rifkin). Surely the data alone make the argument that animals are, by turns, capable of human qualities of problem-solving, communication, learning, and self-awareness. By offering the names of the test animals, though, he imbues them with greater individuality, personality and dignity. Giving the animals human names invites readers to think of them in terms usually reserved only for human beings. This strategy is likely intended to play on the emotions of readers by establishing a relationship of similarity between the animals mentioned and ourselves. The more human animals seem, the more it follows that they should be treated with the empathy and dignity we assume all humans deserve. This appeal to pathos thus helps advance Rifkin’s claim that we should “expand and deepen our empathy to include the broader community of creatures with whom we share the earth.”