Prompt:
This paper is called the lens essay. You are to take concepts and arguments from one text as a context for understanding, evaluating and writing about another. In this case, you will use Characteristics of a Demagoguery by Patricia Roberts-Miller to examine George Wallacesinagural speech. You will be using her definition and qualities that qualify something as demagogic to evaluate and analyze the other text. You will need to use the qualities polarization and rhetoric of hate (ingroup/outgroup thinking) to determine that what you are using is demagogic and analyze how that helps make it demagogic in addition to at least three other characteristics of a demagogue. I also want to see you point out at least one fallacy and thoroughly analyze it. Analyze the George Wallace inaugural speech in the context of Characteristics of a Demagoguery.
Need: Needs to be rewritten with more analysis than a summary. We need to add 3 more characteristics found in George Wallace’s speech that are talked about in Roberts-Miller’s paper. Improve the intro paragraph, add more characteristics of dem. Also, add quotes from Wallace. Take out the summary paragraphs replace them with analyzation
These are the questions asked to the revising process that must meet the requirements.
1) Does the introduction include an overview of the topic, all the necessary information (author, topic, etc), and a guide to the structure of the paper? Is there a clear, specific thesis statement?
2) Does the topic sentence for each paragraph introduce the forthcoming ideas clearly? Does the student stick to the topic for each paragraph or stray from the main idea? What could be done to clarify the body paragraphs?
3) Does the paper use polarization and in-group/out-group thinking as two characteristics of a demagogue? Does the student use at least three other characteristics of a demagogue? Do they all make sense when related to the text?
4) How well does the student explain the relationship of the demagoguery characteristics to the text he/she is evaluating?
5)How does your peer bring in a fallacy? Is there at least one fallacy? Is this thoroughly explained in the paper? What could be done to improve this?
6) Does the paper use descriptive quotes from the text to support the analysis? Does your peer introduce, integrate and explain the quotes sufficiently?
7) Is the paper mostly summary, or mostly analysis and evaluation?
