I think for the 3 rhetorical analysis, I think it is not so difficult to differentiate between primary sources and secondary sources. However, since the primary sources are usually first handed sources and may not be well researched, it is not easy for me to spot the opinion of the authors.
For example, 1 of the authors of my primary sources are mostly giving out the facts instead of making a lot argument. This confused me because it seems a good source because it is really informative and since she was there, in the city where the hijacking event occured, her article is really convincing. I was really hesitating to decide whether I should give it up.
Another problem I have is that even though I know I need to do some research on the authors of the sources, I could not find enough information to describe them as a credible or a trustworthy author. The only thing I can do is to summarize those of their short intro which is really hard for me.
Since some authors were generally giving facts, the ethos, pathos and logos appeals were not easy to spot.
No comments:
Post a Comment