Rhetoric is defined as the art of speaking or writing persuasively. A rhetorical analysis is a critical deconstruction and examination of a text. It identifies and analyzes the rhetorical strategies at play and their effects, and it focuses on the interactions between a text, its creator, and its audience. 

When composing a rhetorical analysis, the assignment is to write about how a text argues a position, not what position a text argues. A rhetorical analysis, in other words, is writing about writing. A “text” can include an image, a building, a commercial, even a bumper sticker or coffee mug. These are “texts,” whether or not they actually have text! Any of these texts can (and do) present arguments that serve a purpose and are constructed by a creator who made specific choices based on their intent and target audience.

Because this genre is rooted in analyzing source material, the first step in constructing a rhetorical analysis is to become an expert on the text to be deconstructed. Similar to a research paper, a rhetorical analysis must identify specific evidence from the text to make a claim. This textual evidence should illustrate how the argument was constructed, organized, and expressed. Identifying the author’s rhetorical strategies and analyzing why those strategies were used allow the analysis to evolve into a rhetorical argument in its own right.

One common approach to developing this command over the source material is applying Aristotelian logic when reading a text. According to Aristotle, three components make up a well-balanced, effective argument:

• Ethos: content that establishes the author’s credibility regarding the topic and the argument presented. This appeal intends to establish trust between the author and the audience.
• Pathos: content that generates emotional responses from the reader. This emotional appeal intends to sway the audience's opinion based on their beliefs about the topic and their feelings regarding the position argued.
• Logos: content that relays factual evidence and logical reasoning. This appeal to logic intends to convince the audience of the argument’s objective validity.

Consider this joke, and observe how ethos, pathos, and logos might apply to its analysis.

What did the fish say when he ran into a wall? Dam.

How did the joke teller use pathos? One way is that the joke puts the audience at ease by providing the reader with something to chuckle at. Another way is that the joke makes the audience uncomfortable because it employs a play on what some consider foul language. Both reactions create a connection rooted in emotion between the joke’s author and the intended audience.

How did the joke teller use ethos? The author makes a series of assumptions about the audience in this joke. For example, the author assumes that the audience knows that “dam” and “damn” are homonyms. The author also assumes that the audience knows where dams geographically exist and that fish live in water. For a reader who is “in the know,” these assumptions establish a rapport. For a reader who does not know these things, its inclusion may be alienating. Both reactions show how trust (or credibility) affects the relationship between the author and the intended audience.

How did the joke teller use logos? The author uses facts and reason in a similar fashion. The facts that “dam” and “damn” are homonyms, that fish live in water, and that dams are walls submerged in water reflect a logical perception of our world. Their presence appeals to the audience’s sense of logic and reason, which stems from what the reader knows to be factual. This appeal utilizes tangible, supportable knowledge, which comes to fruition in the joke’s punchline when these facts combine to produce a giggle or a gasp.

A common pitfall of a rhetorical analysis is summarizing a text instead of analyzing it.

See the UWC handout: Summary vs. Analysis.

Remember, the purpose of a rhetorical analysis essay is to explain how and why the writer made their argument, not to report what the writer is arguing.

A summary thesis:

• The article about dolphins by Dr. John Doe explains why changes in the ocean’s temperature are affecting dolphin populations.

A rhetorical analysis thesis:

• Dr. John Doe’s article on shifting dolphin populations uses a balance of factual scientific studies, expert testimony, and emotional phrasing to convince his audience that scientists must address changing ocean temperatures.

The first thesis is not a rhetorical analysis because it only reports the source’s subject matter. There is no indication of an argument nor mention of how that argument was constructed. Further development is needed to make this thesis appropriate for a rhetorical analysis.

The second thesis achieves multiple aims. It mentions the author and his intention; it states specific rhetorical strategies (logos, ethos, and pathos—if not by name, then contextually) the author employed; and it asserts the argument's effectiveness.

To ensure that the writing fits the rhetorical analysis genre, deconstruct and analyze the text using some of these questions:

• What is the objective of this text?
  • Is this text intended to persuade an audience? Inform? Entertain? Is it designed to shock? Is it a call to action?
• How does the text achieve that aim?
  • Does it tug at the reader’s heartstrings by using personal stories? Does it reference scientific studies and statistical data to illustrate consensus among experts?
• What is known about the author?
  • What might an author’s age, ethnicity, or gender indicate about their position? How could their political beliefs, education, or geographic location influence their argument? Is there anything about the author’s identity that makes them more credible? Does anything compromise their credibility?
• Who is the intended audience for this text?
  • What are the demographics of the targeted audience? What gender, age group, socioeconomic class, or education level is the author engaging? What culture or subculture does this audience occupy? How did the author cater to this audience? Language use? Knowledge of ritual? Compliance with rules?
• Did the author address this audience appropriately?
  • What features in the text would successfully persuade the audience based on their social class? Gender? Spiritual beliefs? What aspects of the text might alienate the audience based on the rules and rituals of their subculture?
• What is the nature of the topic?
  • Is the topic of the source familiar and considered general knowledge? Does the topic require a reader to possess background information or context? Do most readers already have a position regarding the topic? Is the topic a polarizing debate in our culture?

Final Tips

Although constructing a rhetorical analysis is challenging, it serves a significant purpose. Understanding the tools of persuasion leads to critical awareness, and harnessing the ability to deconstruct and analyze an argument protects readers from the dangers of manipulative persuasion and propaganda. Critical awareness gives us the power to define our own belief structures and establish our own positions within a debate. This awareness is the foundation of responsible citizenship. Cicero sums up this point succinctly: “Whoever does not study rhetoric will be a victim of it.”