The rhetorical analysis involved summarizing two readings presented by identifying the
key ideas and rhetorical features presented in them by the authors. The readings were “Getting
out of Grading” by Scott Jaschik and “Trigger Warnings, College, and the Swaddled Generation”
by Kathleen Parker. The writing process for the rhetoric analysis was guided by the provided
instructions to ensure that the presented content did not deviate from what was expected. The
instructions required that I be impartial in analyzing the readings to avoid inclining on one
author’s work than the other. As advised by the instructions, comparing and contrasting revolves
around analyzing what is common in the readings. Therefore, in my initial thinking stage, I had
an idea that the readings are closely related to what the authors present, and I was supposed to
compare and contrast them. In the analysis, I had to determine the intended audience I was to
write to, purpose, and examples that rhetorically appeal to the pathos, ethos, and logos.
In my first draft, there were many errors as I had failed to meet the requirements of the
instructions. In the introduction of the first draft, I did not give the purpose of the study.
However, after being advised on how to write a good thesis statement to depict the purpose of
the analysis, I added it in the final version. This made it easier for the reader to understand what I
intended to present in the paper. Another mistake made in the first version was that I had inclined
to Kathleen Parker’s presentation but failed to analyze Scott Jaschik’s work in the introduction.
This was against comparing and contrasting guidelines and more of a review. After being

Surname 2
advised to recheck the section and correct it accordingly, I included Scott’s work to ensure that it
was clear that I was comparing and contrasting works from two authors in the final copy.
When presenting a comparison and contrasting analysis, the reader expects a well-
organized work that is easy to read through. A good rhetoric analysis requires to be divided into
several sections as there are various issues that are compared and contrasted. I had decided to
categorize my work into three groups, ethos, pathos, and logos but did not give headings for each
in the first draft. Rather, I had written it as an essay from the start to finish. I was told that this
makes it difficult to find the key ideas and rhetoric features in my work as the reader has to go
through every paragraph to determine which category it falls in. Therefore, I implemented the
advice given in the final version and put subheadings for the three categories.
The best advice I received in revising this work was that I should always go through the
work several times and compare it to the provided instructions to ensure that it adheres in all
ways. This helps to identify the mistakes made and correct them before submitting the final
version. I have learned the importance of organizing any rhetoric work in groups to make the
work easier to read. The learned knowledge during revision will be implemented in future
classes to ensure that I perfect my work. I will be able to write better thesis statements, ensure
that I compare and contrast the authors’ ideas, and properly group my work in subheadings. This
rhetoric analysis and its revision were essential in improving my writing style and I was able to
present an improved final version.