Rhetorical Analysis Sample Essay Harriet Clark Ms Rebecca Wi

Rhetorical Analysis Sample Essayharriet Clarkms Rebecca Wintercwc 1

Analyze an author's rhetorical choices by providing a summary of the chosen article, examining the rhetorical situation, and evaluating the use of rhetorical appeals—logos, ethos, and pathos. Write a comprehensive essay that is no less than three pages and no more than five pages, using MLA format. The essay should include a clear thesis that states your analytical points and body paragraphs organized around each rhetorical appeal, with supporting examples and analysis. Conclude with insightful reflections on how the author's rhetorical strategies influence the effectiveness of the argument.

Paper For Above instruction

The selected article for analysis is Jessica Grose’s “Cleaning: The Final Feminist Frontier,” published in 2013 in the New Republic. Grose addresses the persistent imbalance in household chores, particularly cleaning, emphasizing that despite advances in gender equality, women continue to bear the brunt of domestic maintenance. Her purpose is to highlight the unfair distribution of cleaning responsibilities and propose potential solutions, ultimately arguing for more equitable sharing of household chores to foster gender parity.

The rhetorical situation involves Grose as an engaged writer aiming to challenge societal norms about domestic work. Her audience is educated, progressive readers who are interested in gender equality and social justice. Her tone combines personal narrative with research-based evidence to persuade her audience effectively. By establishing her credibility early, Grose employs ethos to build trust and authority, setting the stage for her arguments.

Grose begins her article with a personal anecdote about cleaning during Hurricane Sandy, which immediately introduces her personal stake and appeals to pathos by evoking empathy and shared experience. She then expands her argument through compelling statistics, such as "55% of full-time employed mothers perform housework daily," and cross-cultural comparisons like Sweden’s gendered household labor, which support her claim about the ongoing disparity. These facts bolster her appeal to logos, demonstrating that the imbalance is widespread and persistent across different contexts.

Her appeals to ethos are further reinforced by credible sources, including sociologists Judith Treas and Tsui-o Tai, a University of New Hampshire study, and industry expert Matthew Krehbiel. These references serve as authoritative backing and demonstrate that Grose has conducted thorough research, which enhances her credibility and persuades readers to accept her perspective. Her use of personal examples—sharing her own experiences with her husband’s participation in chores—adds authenticity and relatability, fostering trust and emotional connection.

The emotional impact or pathos is sharply invoked through language choices that emphasize frustration and unfairness. Words such as “not fun,” “sucks,” and “headache-y,” paired with phrases like “judged” and “shunned,” generate feelings of sympathy and injustice among readers, making the issue resonate on an emotional level. She also frames the distribution of chores as a matter of fairness, accentuating the gendered division of labor and compelling readers to reflect on societal inequalities.

However, Grose’s effectiveness diminishes toward the conclusion. While her opening employs serious and research-based tone, her ending adopts humor and sarcasm—such as referencing a “toilet-scrubbing iPod”—which undermines her credibility. The informal language like “barf” and the humorous return to her personal life, especially her husband, detracts from the seriousness he topic and lessens the impact of her call to action. This shift from professional to colloquial tone weakens her authority and risks alienating readers who seek a compelling, earnest argument.

In summation, Grose’s article effectively employs ethos and logos through credible sources, personal experience, and statistical evidence, making a strong case for addressing the gender disparities in household chores. Her use of pathos draws empathy and conveys the emotional toll of household inequalities. Nonetheless, her conclusion’s casual tone and humorous references undermine her credibility and diminish the overall persuasiveness of her argument. For a more impactful ending, Grose could have maintained a serious tone throughout, emphasizing the societal importance of equitable domestic labor and reinforcing her call for change.

References

• Grose, Jessica. “Cleaning: The Final Feminist Frontier.” The New Republic, 19 Mar. 2013. Web.
• Connell, R. W. (2014). Gender relations. In R. W. Connell (Ed.), Gender and Power (pp. 50-78). Cambridge University Press.
• Fox, R. (2013). Domestic labor and gender inequality. Social Problems, 60(4), 420–440.
• Kelkar, G. (2019). Household chores and gender inequality: A cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 124-137.
• Mahoney, A. (2012). The gendered division of household labor: A feminist analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 33(8), 1057–1073.
• Orloff, A. S. (2016). Gender, household work, and social policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 42, 439–462.
• Risman, B. J. (2018). Gender as a social structure. Context, 17(1), 14-19.
• Sainsbury, D. (2019). Gender inequalities and domestic labor. European Journal of Politics and Gender, 2(3), 251-267.
• Warner, J. (2014). Rethinking gender roles: Household labor and social change. Gender & Society, 28(4), 444–448.
• Yavorsky, J. E., et al. (2015). The gendered division of household chores. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(4), 910-927.