8/27

Warm-up:  SWrite 3 sentences about your first week of school or this past weekend.  One sentence should be pattern 2, one should be pattern 7, and the final one should be pattern 8.  Use your TASS books.

Classwork:  group work to turn triangles (most important points of Thank You for Arguing) into posters that model an assigned sentence pattern from The Art of Styling Sentences



Homework:  Due Thursday: TASS meets TYFA (10 professional example explanations)

Directions:  Reread pp. 6-21 in The Art of Styling Sentences.  For sentence patterns 1, 2, 3, and 4 (not 4a), choose at least TEN of the “Professional Examples” sentences to work with. 

For each “Professional Example,”

1)      Briefly explain WHY the sentence is an example of the particular pattern.

2)     Then, consider what Heinrichs might say about this sentence.  Does it seem to use ethos, logos, and/or pathos? If so, what type, and how? Does it appeal to values, assign blame, or call for the audience to make a choice? What other rhetorical tricks or strategies seem to be present in this sentence?  Is the sentence an argument or part of an argument of some kind?  If so, what does the author seem to WANT from his or her audience?

Example:  “It made no sense to anyone; it was just style.”  SF Chronicle

1)     This sentence is an example of a compound sentence without a conjunction because it consists of two complete thoughts with only a semicolon joining them.

2)     Heinrichs might say that the journalist who wrote this sentence was using ordinary language and clear sentence structure to establish his ethos as a direct, plain communicator who is communicating sense without unnecessary style. He is also using the word “style,” which has both negative and positive connotations, to assign blame to the speech or text he is criticizing.  If something is done with style, that typically implies it was done with grace, finesse, and flair, but something done with “just” style means it lacks substance, or sense. We Americans may like style, but we also value speakers and writers who seem to communicate common, plain old sense. This writer seems to want the audience to condemn and dismiss the text or speaker he is criticizing.