In particular, thinking about a rhetor’s (the person making the argument) main claim, sub-claims, and the evidence and reasoning used to support them.
Mitch Landrieu’s main claim is that New Orleans (and perhaps everywhere else) is right to be taking down its confederate monuments. The goal for this assignment is to show the sub-claims that support the larger claim, as well as looking at the evidence he uses for support.
Step one is to identify each claim. Be careful about working linearly through the speech — support may be given in different places.
As always, credit will be given based on the depth of thinking that shows on the page.
You might want to make a table like this one, but you aren’t required to. If you don’t be sure to clearly identify claims, reasons, and evidence.
| Claim | Claim | Claim | ||
| Reason (and evidence, if any) | Reason (and evidence, if any) | Reason (and evidence, if any) | ||
Rubric
Process Work #3
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrates understanding of Claims, Evidence, Reasoning |
|
7.0 pts |
|||
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClaims IdentifiedIdentifies important sub-claims in Landrieu’s argument |
|
8.0 pts |
|||
|
Total Points: 15.0 |
|||||
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
