Rhetorical Analysis example snippets

Here are some snippets to discuss regarding the upcoming Rhetorical Analysis. Remember to write 2 full pages minimum, cite any references from your article, and include a works cited (MLA) or references (APA) page.

Purpose: The purpose of the first paper, “Impact of Peanut Allergy on Quality of Life, Stress, and Anxiety in the Family”, written by R.M. King, R.C. Knibb, and J. O’B. Hourihane is to relate study findings. This study was performed to assess how a family’s quality of life is affected when a child in the family has a peanut allergy. This is made evident by the title of the article, as well as sentences like this, “Food allergy can have a significant impact on the psychosocial aspects of quality of life, extending beyond the immediate clinical effects of the patient’s allergic condition”, and this, “This study…sought to measure the differences in the perception of quality of life between both parents and older sibling of the child with peanut allergy…” (King 2008). The readers are left to conclude that the main purpose is to relate the study findings causing the readers to take this information into consideration when they are confronted with this issue.

Audience: The audiences of the first paper are doctors and clinicians, specifically those who deal with peanut allergy afflicted children and their families. For example, sentences like, “…clinicians need to be aware of the differing affects of peanut allergy on the whole family”, show that this paper is directed at clinicians (King 2008). The fact that this was published in a peer reviewed magazine for allergists, Allergy, is another clue telling the reader that doctors are targeted as well. The authors of the article seek to educate this group of people, enabling them to be better equipped in handling the issues having a child with peanut allergy inflicts on a family.

Significance: The significance of the paper is that they go about the study in a unique, child friendly, way. The participating children filled out a questionnaire and along with that, “Each child received a disposable camera…and notebook, and was asked to record how their condition impacted their quality of life over a 24-hour period” (Avery 2003). For every picture they took they were asked to write down what they were feeling.This study gave the children a sense of control and creativity while being a fun project for them to do. It was much more child friendly than having them only fill out a questionnaire. It is important to have the subjects at ease, making an accurate natural result. Doing this is much like finding out how the lion lives by sneaking into the tundra with your camera to document it in its natural habitat.

Strategy: Wennergren grabs the attention of the reader right away.He does this with the title of his paper. It causes the reader to be sucked in, wanting to find out how the author will support his unconventional hypothesis. He briefly lays the background of conventional wisdom, “to avoid the allergens in question”. In the first paragraph he states that, “such advice has been removed from the Swedish guidelines since evidence supporting them was insufficient”. His article is only two pages in length, thus enabling it to be passed around and read quickly. He spreads his message in the time it takes to ride an elevator.He does this to get his message out rapidly among doctors where time is precious.It is an effective way to start a serious dialogue.

Claims & Support: All of the claims made in the first paper are thoroughly backed up. Regarding the kinds of stress these families may experience they cite, “Girls with peanut allergy had significantly higher scores for anxiety over physical injury than boys with peanut allergy” (King 2008). This assertion is supported showing the physical injury anxiety scores for girls, “5.07” and boys, “2.27” (King 2008). Their claims seem logical and solid because they lay out the information in tables, making the study findings easily accessible.

Bias

There does not seem to be any particular bias in the first paper. The effort is made to present all sides of the issue. For example, potential problems with proxy studies are pointed out, “Proxy ratings have been shown…to…exaggerate the impact of psychological distress”. While still making concessions like, “mothers may have a more realistic view of the true impact of peanut allergy on their allergic child than other family members” (King 2008). Being open about any pitfalls when pointing out why their study is needed makes the attitude of bias seem nonexistent.

The third paper is naturally biased towards the author’s hypothesis. However, he does not support it in such a way that he detracts from his message.He does not use language that is alarmist by reporting that the sky is falling. He is careful to propose that his hypothesis “may be” correct, staying open to the possibility that there might be another cause that is not yet known (Wennergren 2009). Biased arrogance does not manifest itself even after he lines up numerous studies to support his theory. This can be seen in his conclusion where he states, “Early introduction rather than avoidance may be a better strategy for the prevention of food allergy” (Wennergren 2009).