Unit 2: Selecting Evidence and Rhetorical Appeals Vocabulary
Unit Overview & Essential Questions
Unit Subject: Selecting Evidence to Motivate an Audience.
Unit Breakdown:
Part 1: Relating to an Audience
Part 2: Strategic and Sufficient Evidence
Part 3: Identifying a Thesis
Essential Questions:
Part 1: How does an audience influence the writer’s choices?
Part 2: How does strategically selected and sufficient evidence support and strengthen an argument?
Part 3: How can you describe an argument’s overarching thesis and what it suggests about the argument’s structure?
Part 1: Relating to an Audience
Key Terms (Part 1):
Background: Total of one’s experiences, knowledge, education, and family life.
Beliefs: Morals, standards, codes of conduct, religious beliefs.
Emotional Appeal (Pathos): Attempts by writers to motivate or persuade an audience by evoking their emotions or passions.
Ethical Appeal (Ethos): Attempts by writers to convey the credibility of their character.
Logical Appeal (Logos): Appeals that focus on a line of reasoning that is backed by evidence: facts, statistics, data, examples, and expert testimony.
Modes of Persuasion: How a writer appeals to the audience.
Needs: Requirements for life and well-being.
Rhetorical Choices: Choices made by the writer to appeal to the audience, encompassing content, tone, and word choice.
Purpose: What the writer wants the audience to do or think.
Values: Priorities and principles held in high regard.
Section 1.1 — Relating to an Intended Audience:
Audiences possess distinct values, beliefs, backgrounds, and needs.
Writers adapt their message to an intended audience’s emotions and values in order to achieve their overall purpose for writing or speaking.
Rhetorical choices include decisions regarding content selection, tone, and specific word choice.
Checkpoint 1.1 Practice: Analyze the text message conversation on page 60 of the textbook to evaluate audience adaptation.
Section 1.2 — Modes of Persuasion & The Rhetorical Triangle:
Writers present arguments to persuade and motivate their target audience.
Arguments are strengthened when writers appeal to both the audience's emotions and their sense of logic.
Ethical Appeals (Ethos): Used to establish credibility and win the trust of the audience (refer to Table 2.3 on page 66). Addresses the core question: Why should the audience trust the speaker?
Emotional Appeals (Pathos): Used to move an audience to feel what the writer feels (refer to Table 2.4 on page 67). Addresses the core question: Why should the audience care?
Logical Appeals (Logos): Focuses on a coherent line of reasoning that asserts a claim and backs it up with concrete evidence, such as facts, statistics, data, examples, and expert testimony (refer to Table 2.5 on page 69). Addresses the core question: Does the argument make sense?
The Rhetorical Triangle Structure:
Core Principle: Effective and strong arguments systematically blend all three rhetorical appeals around a central purpose.
Checkpoint 1.2 Practice: Evaluate how rhetorical appeals intersect with audience expectations.
Case Study 1 — Malala Yousafzai's Speech to the UN Youth Assembly:
Context: Speech delivered on "Malala Day" (July 12, 2013) by Malala Yousafzai, a girls' and children's education rights activist. She survived an assassination attempt in 2012 when she was 15 years old. She delivered this address to the "Youth Take Over the UN" Assembly, a campaign stressing global education rights. This marked her first public address following the assassination attempt (Text pages 104–105).
Analysis Handout Questions:
What does Yousafzai's audience value? How do you know?
Identify three or four sentences from her speech that help the reader infer Yousafzai’s thesis.
What evidence does Yousafzai provide to support her thesis? Which evidence seems the most convincing and of the highest quality?
Composing Your Own Writing Task: Respond to Yousafzai’s ideas regarding education and women’s rights. Describe personal experiences with or observations about education and women’s rights, identifying specific texts or articles read on these topics that serve as supporting evidence.
Case Study 2 — Hillary Rodham Clinton UN Speech (Beijing, 1995):
Context: Remarks delivered by former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, in 1995.
Unit 2 Part 1 Review Task: Read or listen to Clinton's address and document specific examples of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos throughout the text.
Part 2: Strategic and Sufficient Evidence
Key Terms (Part 2):
Amplify: Intensify a writer’s point.
Associate: Connect one idea with another.
Clarify: Explain or define unfamiliar words or concepts in simple terms.
Credibility: The quality of being believable and trustworthy.
Exemplify / Illustrate: Provide a thorough, concrete example.
Mood: The emotional atmosphere created by the writer for the audience.
Quality: High quality evidence is appropriate, valid, and directly relevant.
Quantity: The amount of evidence provided (dependent on audience and purpose).
Validity: Logically and factually sound.
Section 2.1 — Strategic Evidence:
Writers deliberately select evidence to strengthen the validity and reasoning of their arguments.
Key Functions of Evidence:
Amplify and clarify main points.
Illustrate core arguments.
Highlight and demonstrate a writer’s credibility.
Set the intended mood and tone.
Two-Step Strategy for Evidence Selection:
Step 1: Consider your specific writing purpose.
Step 2: Select evidence that directly helps achieve that purpose.
Section 2.2 — Using Valid and Sufficient Evidence:
Checkpoint 2.1 Principles:
Optimal evidence strengthens argument validity, aligns with audience emotions and values, and increases writer credibility.
Evidence that is biased or unreliable actively weakens an argument.
Effective arguments integrate counterarguments to solidify credibility and validity.
Checkpoint 2.2 Standards for Evidence Quality:
Writers must evaluate their full rhetorical situation when choosing evidence.
Timeliness / Currency: Scientific and academic writing requires modern research; philosophical questions can cite classic authors who have stood the test of time.
Authority: Evidence must be gathered from authoritative, trustworthy sources.
Sufficient Quantity: The required quantity of evidence varies according to the argument's purpose and audience expectations.
Evaluative Evidence Checklist (Checkpoint 2.2 Questions):
Is the source credible and from an organization that can be trusted?
Is it current—published within the last five years? For science and technology, was it published within the last one or two years?
Is it from a primary source? Is that source biased?
Does it relate to other evidence?
Does it relate directly to the claim?
Is the quantity sufficient to build an effective, persuasive argument?
Student Draft Analysis — Global Education Handout:
What sentence(s) help the reader infer the writer’s thesis about global education?
Identify the claims made in the student draft.
Which claim(s) have sufficient evidence?
Which claim(s) are less convincing? Are they less convincing because they lack sufficient evidence, because they have low-quality evidence, or because of another reason? Explain.
AP Exam Application — Selecting Evidence:
AP Lang Question 3 (Argument Essay): Selecting specific, well-developed evidence to build and defend a personal claim.
AP Lang Question 2 (Rhetorical Analysis Essay): Analyzing how an author selects and structures evidence to convince an audience.
Unit 2 Part 2 Review Task: Reread former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks to the Fourth UN Conference on Women. Write a response identifying two or three examples of Clinton’s choice of evidence and explain how they illustrate, clarify, set the mood, exemplify, associate, or amplify her points.
Part 3: Identifying a Thesis & Argument Structure
Key Terms (Part 3):
Argument Structure: The organizational pattern used to defend a thesis.
Claim: A statement or assertion made in an argument.
Thesis: The writer’s overarching claim.
Thesis Statement: A single explicit statement that often includes the central claim and other key structural elements.
Section 3.1 — Thesis Statements & Previewing Structure:
Checkpoint 3.1 Principles:
A thesis statement presents a clearly stated central claim.
It frequently incorporates key supporting claims or arguments.
Implied vs. Explicit Thesis: While published texts may feature an implied thesis that readers infer, AP essay compositions strictly require a clear, explicit thesis statement.
Structural Preview Comparison:
Weak / Meta-commentary Preview (Avoid): "In this essay, I will show how language and thinking are linked. I will then suggest bad habits that are clouding our thinking, and then I will make suggestions on how to break them."
Strong / Integrated Structural Thesis (Model): "Because language and thinking are linked, sloppiness in language can turn into sloppiness in thought. But breaking bad language habits can be done, and it can lead to clearer thinking and more honest politics."
Analysis: A strong thesis previews logical relationships (e.g., cause/effect, problem/solution) directly, avoiding empty meta-announcements of authorial intent.
Unit 2 Part 3 Review Task: Reread or listen to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remarks at the Fourth United Nations Conference on Women. Write a response that defines Clinton’s thesis and explains how she defends it, explicitly citing evidence from the speech.
Rhetorical Analysis Assignments & Prompts
Prompt 1 — Malala Yousafzai UN Youth Assembly Address:
Background Context: Delivered July 12, 2013 ("Malala Day") at the "Youth Take Over the UN" Assembly. Yousafzai, a girls' education activist, survived an assassination attempt in 2012 at age 15. This was her first address following the attack (Text pages 104–105).
Prompt Task: Read the passage carefully. Write a paragraph identifying some of the rhetorical choices Yousafzai makes and briefly explain how those choices convey her message that all children around the world deserve an equal education.
Submission Requirements:
Respond to the prompt with a claim that analyzes the writer’s rhetorical choices.
Select and use evidence to support your line of reasoning.
Briefly explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.
Prompt 2 — Christopher L. Gaspar: "Replay in Sports Isn’t the Problem—Judgement Is":
Background Context: Christopher L. Gaspar is a Boston University graduate and former sportswriter for The Boston Globe who transitioned to television reporting in 2020. In 2019, he published an article analyzing instant replay in sports, exploring where to assign blame when instant replay fails to serve its intended purpose.
Prompt Task: Read the article carefully. Write a paragraph that analyzes the rhetorical choices Gaspar makes to engage his audience and convey his message about the misuse of instant replays.
Submission Requirements:
Respond to the prompt with a claim that analyzes the writer’s rhetorical choices.
Select and use evidence to support your line of reasoning.
Briefly explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.