Select an influential public speech intended to have an immediate short-term effect on its audience (political, motivational,

This 3-4 page paper is a Neo-Aristotelian criticism of a rhetorical speech and will introduce you to doing rhetorical criticism. Select an influential public speech intended to have an immediate short-term effect on its audience (political, motivational, congressional, presidential, speeches for a cause, etc.) and utilize the basic framework of rhetorical criticism shown below.

The paper should be divided into the following five sections:

[1] Introduction.

Briefly introduce the speech. Then clearly present and underline the thesis* of your criticism.

(*Remember, a rhetorical criticism should not be a mere application of a method to some rhetorical artifact. Rather, the criticism should have some point, and that point will be expressed in the thesis of the paper. Because the point of the criticism depends upon what you discover in your analysis, it is often not possible to frame the thesis of the criticism until the analysis (section [4] ) has been completed and at least a rough outline of the conclusions (section [5]) has been done.)

[2] Background

Next, describe the artifact by addressing a number of topics… First, summarize the factors that gave rise to the speech, especially the exigence the speech seeks to redress. Second, describe the rhetorical function(s) or intent of the speech, explicating the attitudes, beliefs, or actions the artifact seeks to induce. Third, demonstrate the significance* of the speech by explaining why it merits critical attention.

(*Significance can be established in three ways: 1] it has had a strong or widespread effect on one or more audiences, 2] it is typical or representative of many other rhetorical speeches, 3] it is unique and, therefore, may demonstrate some unusual rhetorical principle.)

[3] Summary of method.

In this section, present a brief introduction to the Neo-Aristotelian method. This can be one or two paragraphs, and should fulfill two functions: [1] it should acquaint the reader with the general nature of the method and [2] it should justify the suitability of this method for the analysis.

[4] Analysis

Now, apply the method and present your findings. This will typically be the most developed section of the paper. Organize the analysis according to the rhetorical canons being applied.* In this section, you're making an argument by filling up this section with supporting evidence from the speech itself. If you make a strong, evidence-based case, the paper has "justification."

(*Remember, you don't necessarily have to apply all 5 canons indiscriminately. You may instead choose to focus on the canon(s) or proof(s) that are most relevant/salient to your selected speech.)

[5] Discussion.

"So what" about your analysis? Get insightful here! In this section, interpret the findings of the analysis and suggest further implications. The answers to the below questions constitute what are commonly called the conclusions of the criticism. The conclusions of your paper are the payoff of the analysis and should be prepared and presented carefully. Some of these conclusions will also guide the development of the thesis of the paper in that they establish the point of your criticism. So the paper will have "coherence" because this section unpacks the thesis that was stated in the introduction and dovetails with the discoveries that were made in section 4.

The first task—interpreting the findings of the analysis. Address two important questions: 1] “How do the findings of your analysis illuminate the rhetorical function or significance of the artifact?” 2] “What do these findings tell us about the value of the artifact?” You are here evaluating the artifact's effectiveness and/or appropriateness of the artifact. As noted above, these conclusions will guide the development of the thesis.

The second task—presenting the rhetorical implications of the analysis. Consider two questions: 1] “What might this analysis tell us about the nature and/or functions of other similar rhetorical artifacts?” and 2] “How might this analysis contribute to rhetorical theory in general?” These generalizations are based on what was found in section 4. This closing section is typically brief but is useful for providing a context for your analysis within the field of rhetorical studies.

Formatting: You are expected to write 3 FULL pages minimum using a standard TNR 12 font, standard margins, and double spacing. Papers that are 2 1/2 or 2 3/4 pages or that are short because of stretched font or margins will NOT receive a passing grade.

Any outside source consulted, paraphrased, or quoted should be properly cited and included in a works cited page