hello class in this lecture we are going to discuss the final stage of critical analysis the evaluation stage in the final stage of criticism the critic increases the capacity of readers to appreciate rhetorical discourse and enables general audiences to make informed and deliberate judgments based on persuasive appeals the critic now makes judgments about the text and this is based on the findings in the descriptive analysis it's based on the findings and the contextual historical analysis and it's based on the decisions made in the inventing a critical perspective stage the first stage focused on the text itself what was in that text in terms of rhetorical or persuasive strategies that was interesting it focuses on the text or artifact only in the next stage the findings from stage one are put into a historical context why would the retort have made the choices they made in the text based on the rhetorical situation so in this stage you define the audience constraints and the exigence or problem that the retour is addressing in stage three the critical perspective you focus on the critic yourself this reflects your biases and your interests and it also reflects the lens through which you are going to look at the text what is it that is interesting and what is the best framework to try and understand your analysis in the fourth stage you will then articulate what it is that you found interesting about your text and why this stage asks the critic to make an argument based on your judgments about the text there are a lot of different directions that this analysis can go so for this final stage we're going to use four possible criteria for evaluation your final paper you can choose one of these criteria through which to articulate your arguments or all four if it makes sense for the judgments in your analysis let's begin there are many different ways to analyze a text but these four criteria of effects truth ethics and artistry allow us to analyze the rhetorical actions of a text specifically it is beneficial for the critic to analyze more than one of these criteria as sometimes the text can be effective truthful and show artistry but perhaps not be ethical therefore it is important that the critic consider each of the criteria in the final analysis even if you only choose to use two or three to write about in your final paper the effects criteria asks is the rhetoric successful at achieving the desired effect from the audience the effects criteria is simply based on whether the retour achieved the desired response from the audience and for historical text this criteria can be easier to apply than more contemporary texts hindsight is 2020. so with a historical case study we can find out if the company recovered is still suffering and or if they failed with their rhetoric for contemporary texts we may have to look at further examples in the text to determine whether or not we think they are effective or not especially if we don't have the benefit of hindsight for example the suicide girls example that i used in a previous lecture is a good contemporary text to determine whether i think the suicide girls are effective i would first argue that their goal with the audience is to empower the alternative woman with her sexuality then i would point to examples in the website that support this as their goal however as the critic i take a gender perspective to this text and i could argue that ultimately the suicide girls are not effective with their rhetoric because they end up excluding a lot of women who want to be part of the website but the members of the website don't vote for them to become suicide girls and they therefore cannot join therefore i could relate this lack of empowerment as an example of the group not being effective with their rhetoric of empowerment for women so when you're thinking about the effects criteria as the critic you want to ask based on your analysis does the retour meet their goals with the audience are they persuasive in a way that would lead to the desired actions they are asking of the audience we are a culture that values truth as the critic you must ask whether the rhetoric is truthful coming from a logical perspective this means that the critic must evaluate whether the text is accurate and adequate to explain the situation and problem insofar as it describes the reality as it is known and understood at the time of the creation of the rhetoric basically you need to test the arguments of the retour and determine whether they are truthful to the situation at hand we also discussed a psychosocial perspective where rhetoric may be focused more on emotional appeals than logical arguments this does not exclude this type of rhetoric from a truthfulness criteria however and in fact critics have to consider the claims made and the evidence provided within the rhetoric as truthful as well if an ad claims to be the best of something you can analyze that product and message for truthfulness for example if you were to choose a perfume ad to analyze and the ad made the claim that if you use this perfume by jennifer lopez you will make 1 million dollars next year that is an obvious mistruth however if it implied that you would look like jennifer lopez because you smell like her then you can also make a claim as the critic that this ad tries to persuasively associate jennifer lopez's celebrity with what the perfume will do for you as the customer and that this does not meet the truthfulness criteria as the critic you have to ask is the rhetoric truthful based on information known at the time does this truthfulness factor into your evaluation of the argument sometimes the text can be very truthful but not ethical this criteria is particularly important after seeing the historical success of rhetoric from dictators like hitler he spoke out against jewish people in a way that was not always truthful in terms of who they were as a race but in a way that was truthful for how he felt about them and for the way that the non-jewish people of germany may have felt about them therefore the truthfulness criteria is not enough to evaluate hitler's rhetoric because regardless of truth or effect he was entirely unethical the ethics criteria asks do the long-term social and political implications of the rhetoric match the values of society in a way that does not harm others unfairly when looking at texts that seem to rely on logic over emotional appeals the critic can analyze the ethical criterion by determining whether the rhetoric is an attempt to polarize the audience and or limit actual discussion debate and dissent about relevant issues that should be debated and critiqued in this sense if a text excludes those from a specific racial gendered or other demographic category the text may be assessed as unethical in the same token if the text is privileging those from a specific demographic then that can also be considered if a text utilizes more of a psychosocial or emotional appeal over logic then the critic has to assess the implications of that rhetoric for society for example if i were to show you a clip from a reality television show that promotes extreme cosmetic surgery complete makeovers of five to six surgeries to achieve the perfect female body as the critic you could assess ethical criteria to say that logically this makes sense because according to the text anybody can be perfect with the right surgeries but it is still unethical because it promotes an idea of a perfection that is not good for society and then you would provide examples to support your argument maybe bring in the statistics about the number of people with cosmetic surgeries each year how this has increased year over year decade over decade how images of perfection lead to decreased self-esteem in young girls etc as you evaluate each criteria you have to make sure that you are able to make an argument that supports your assessment of the text and last but not least the artistic criteria can be considered in an evaluation of a text when we first discussed our definition of rhetoric we talked a lot about the language and structure options available to the critic rhetoric is art specifically a type of poetry words phrases repetition illusions metaphors all of these speak to the artistry of the text in a way that allows the critic to evaluate the artistic elements in order to determine excellence within the rhetoric martin luther king jr's i have a dream speech is one of the best speeches in terms of artistic elements his use of language metaphors illusions and repetition provide an incredibly persuasive document that has been studied for decades past and more still to come of course artistry is not enough on its own a beautiful speech that is untruthful and unethical is not an example of excellent rhetoric however this criteria can be a very important addition to the critics toolbox if the artistic elements of a speech aid in the persuasive strategies of the retour in a way that helps him or her accomplish their goals with the audience then the critic must include that in their evaluation in the final paper you will make choices about what criteria are most important to your argument about the text you can include every single one of these four criteria as support for your argument or you may just choose one if you think that criteria is going to help you make your argument stronger this final paper provides an interpretive argument about the artifacts you've chosen and it integrates the previous essays and new development of your thinking about your artifact this final paper draws heavily on earlier work but it does not simply string previous papers together rather your earlier analyses are creatively blended into a complete polished piece of criticism you are allowed to use sections from your previous papers if in the historical contextual analysis paper you felt that you had a great paragraph that explained the obstacles that the retour was up against you may use that in your final paper just make sure that it makes sense in the final paper based on where you go with your analysis i have posted a more thorough suggested outline at the end of the assignment guidelines for the final paper please take a look at this and contact me with any questions but essentially the majority of the final paper will be your analysis of the text this means you're going beyond pointing out rhetorical strategies or historical context and you're explaining whether you are arguing that the choices the retor made in the speech were effective ethical truthful and or artistic and why or why not this does not mean that all your work in the initial stages is pointless on the contrary we'll use some of the information you gathered in the descriptive analysis of your artifact for examples of why the text does or does not meet the evaluative criteria i'm requesting that after you give the background information about your text after the introduction of the paper but you also provide a summary of the rhetorical situation in which the text is created most of your answers to this section will come from the second stage of analysis and then the rest of the paper will be focused on your judgments of the text what was interesting and why how does this text meet any or all of the evaluative criteria good luck with this final assignment please reach out to me with any questions