Description
COMPARATIVE RHETORICAL ANALYSIS ESSAY - Comparing Disciplines
- Compare and contrast the rhetorical situations and elements of two scholarly, peer-reviewed articles on the same topic from different disciplinary domains
- Audience: Scholars interested in the topic and interested in the topic and interested in specific disciplinary conventions
- Sources: (provided screenshots in attachments)
- FOCUS on each source's rhetorical situation, rhetorical choices, and argument to help analyze conventions in a specific disciplinary framework
- PLEASE READ RUBRIC ATTACHED
RESOURCES: (The two sources you would be comparing)
1. Hunter Kaitlin, Horwitz Gabe, & Kendall David. (April 2020). CoronaCare for Everyone: A Comprehensive Plan to Rescue Health Care (can also be used for citations)
2. Schmidt Harald (May 2020). Vaccine Rationing and the Urgency of Social Justice in the Covid-19 Response
* Use these two sources to compare how the two articles approach the health care problems after the pandemic "differently"
REQUIREMENTS:
1. Intro (including thesis)
2. Body Paragraph
3. Body Paragraph
4. Body Paragraph
(3 body paragraphs total)
5. Conclusion
* RUBRIC ATTACHED BELOW *
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.
Surname 1
Student name
Instructor
Course
Date
Comparative Rhetoric Analysis
In Harald Schmidt's article, "Vaccine Rationing and the Urgency of Social Justice in the
Covid‐19 Response" and Hunter et al., "CoronaCare for Everyone: A Comprehensive Plan to
Rescue Health Care," both authors discuss the grievances brought to the U.S. Congress through
the spread of coronavirus pandemic. After the spread of the COVID-19, the U.S. Congress was
looking for answers that could result in management processes, which some believe are ways
that could control the virus. Although the two authors describe the urgency of comprehensive
plans and vaccines to manage the coronavirus, Hunter et al. establish credibility with the author's
ethos, causing a sense of emotion with the pathos to show the benefits of enhancing the
comprehensive plan.
Hunter et al. start the memo with a pathos mindset to catch the reader's attention early
and bring them to a realization of the terrible coronavirus. In the memo, they state that "the
coronavirus (COVID-19) is putting unprecedented pressure on our nation's health care system.
As of this writing, thousands of Americans have died from COVID-19; over 190,000 cases are
confirmed. As many as 240,000 Americans are projected to die" (Hunter et al.). The author
offers this information on the weight the pandemic has induced in the American healthcare
system to cause an emotional appeal to the readers. The statement persuades the reader to show
them if effective measures were taken, there could be an end to the pandemic. Not knowing that
Surname 2
the disease is taking away innocent lives makes readers trust that comprehensive plans are
required.
On the other hand, Schmidt's article tries to convince readers that the Covid-19 pandemic
requires consideration of two perspectives simultaneously. According to (Schmidt) the two
perspectives are, "first, there are questions about which policies are most effective and fair in the
here and now, as the pandemic unfolds… Second, it is imperative to anticipate the medium‐ and
longer‐term consequences that these policies have." With policy questions taking place in the
comprehensive plan process, the author includes this information to make the reader feel
disgusted. The u...