Rhetorical Proof Cards

Prompt
Assignment adapted from:

Dunn, Patricia. Talking, Sketching, Moving: Multiple Literacies in the Teaching of 

 Writing . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook, 2001. pp. 60-65.

The revision process often includes extensive rearrangement of what we’ve written. Certain facts, quotations, or rhetorical strategies we thought worked well in the beginning of our essays, for example, may actually be better utilized elsewhere. The following exercise will give us a chance to think about the different ways the building blocks of a research essay can be organized and offer us a chance to practice moving chunks of an argument around, experimenting to discover how varied approaches might produce surprising rhetorical outcomes. Though word processors make cutting and pasting very easy, I find that I’m often very hesitant to drastically change the sequence of my writing or to cut sections I’ve already written. This exercise gives us an opportunity to confront that hesitation.

Procedure
In groups, spread out the packet of 17 cards I am providing you. On each card is a hypothetical note on the topic of capital punishment or “pay for play” in college athletics which represents the kind of information, facts, quotations, or anecdotes you might have found in research for an argumentative essay.

First, as a group, decide what kind of argument you wish to construct – pro or con capital punishment / “pay for play.”

Then, arrange the cards in an outline sequence that makes sense in making the argument you’ve decided upon. You may use as many or few of the cards as you like.

Have a group member write a short justification explaining why you’ve placed each card where it is. Consider the rhetorical consequences of what comes first, next, last. Does your hypothetical outline address counterarguments? If so, where? What cards which seem to support your argument has you group decided to omit?

Share and compare.



Assignment Goals
Get students thinking about revision, and especially to engage those who or more visual or kinesthetic thinkers. To encourage students to carefully consider the rhetorical consequences of organization in their research essays, and hopefully to encourage some large-scale experimentation / cutting and pasting in their work.

To encourage group debate and collaboration. Students who do not agree with the group’s argumentative stance can be a good check on those with knee-jerk relationships to the topic and offer valuable feedback from a counterargument position.