1. RWS 100: rhetorical relationships

2. In your paper, you will be expected to explain how your argument (extends, illustrates, clarifies, challenges, complicates, or qualifies) to our class texts.

3. Let’s go over what each of those terms means, and see examples of each:
Extend: When a source advances, develops, expands, or take further some element of an existing argument, we say that the source extends an argument.
Extending an argument involves presenting additional evidence or reasons that are in line with the original argument but go beyond it.

4. Original claim: Hunter S
Original claim: Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas offers a blistering critique of American excess in Sin City.
Claim which extends it: All of Dr. Thompson’s work, from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to The Great Shark Hunt, excoriates all of the darker dimensions of our American dream.

5. Complicate: When a source presents evidence, arguments or claims that are at odds with an author’s position, suggesting that the position needs to be qualified, we say that one text complicates another.
Complicating an author’s argument is not quite the same as disagreeing with it, although disagreement may be involved.
It usually involves suggesting that an author has not dealt with the full complexity of an issue, has failed to consider relevant evidence, or that there is a gap, shortcoming or limitation in an author’s account.
Complicating an argument may involve exposing problems, contradictions, or presenting counterexamples and counterarguments that challenge some part of the argument.

6. Original claim: Terry Gilliam’s film version of Fear and Loathing in Vegas is an absolute abomination.
Claim which complicates it: Although Gilliam’s adaption seems to miss much of the subtler meanings in Thompson’s original novel, Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro’s acting performances deftly capture the manic desperation of Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo.

7. Qualify: When a source presents evidence/claims that suggest an author’s argument goes too far, is too strong, or overgeneralizes, we say it qualifies the author’s argument. When a source limits the scope or extent of claims in an argument, we say that the source qualifies the argument.

8. Original claim: Dr. Hunter S
Original claim: Dr. Hunter S. Thompson was a seriously dangerously writer who was a danger to himself and others.
Claim which qualifies it: Although Dr. Thompson was certainly prone to manic and unpredictable episodes, when he was not under the influence (or driven into a frenzy by American politics) he was an extremely sensitive person who took great care of his friends and family.

9. Challenge: when a source directly contradicts or challenges an author’s position.

10. Original claim: “Richard Nixon is one man, so intimately and thoroughly known to me, that without any hesitation I can personally vouch for his ability, his sense of duty, his sharpness of mind, and his wealth of wisdom.” – Dwight Eisenhower
Claim which challenges it: “For years I've regarded [Nixon’s] existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad.” – Hunter S. Thompson 

11. Illustrate: When a source provides examples, additional evidence, cases or arguments that help explain a position we say that the source illustrates an argument.
Illustrating an argument means to present additional examples that illustrate or support a claim or argument. The illustration may not be explicitly mentioned by the original author.

12. Original claim: In the early 1970s, America was still reeling from the tumultuous political and social upheavals of the 1960s which created a number of extreme cultural divides in American society.
Claim which illustrates it: One of the most compelling anecdotes in Hunter S. Thompson’s 1971 novel, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, tells the story of a Rolling Stone writer, and admitted drug fiend, humorously attempting to infiltrate a District Attorney conference on Narcotics.

13. Questions? Let’s do an activity based on this!
In your teams, review the claims on the handout, and determine how the additional sources relate to the additional claims.
Work on these and be prepared to report out to the group!

14. QUIZ??!?!

15. Homework:
Your Rhetorical Analysis blog post on a song is due Sunday night.
Work on charting your text. (Hint: Do it before Thanksgiving!)