Improving Your Rhetorical Analysis Commentary

Tips to Improve Commentary

1. Identify the Purpose Clearly
   Ask: What is the writer trying to accomplish with this rhetorical choice, in this context?
   Avoid generic effects like "to make the reader feel bad."
   
   

2. Acknowledge the Audience
   Who is the audience, and what are their values, beliefs, or concerns? How is the speaker tailoring their language to connect with them?
   
   

3. Incorporate Context/Exigence
   Why is the speaker writing now? Tie commentary to the historical, political, or social context.
   
   

4. Use Cause-and-Effect Thinking
   Show how a specific choice helps achieve a specific goal in light of the rhetorical situation.
   
   

5. Be Specific and Grounded
   Replace "this makes the reader think" with "this aligns with the audience's belief that..." or "this reassures the audience who may be skeptical because..."

Strategies for Practice

• Answer: “Why this choice, for this audience, at this moment?”
  
  

• Try sentence starters like:
  
  

  • “Given that the audience is likely to…”
    
    

  • “In the context of [historical moment], the speaker’s use of…”
    
    

  • “This strategy aligns with the purpose of… by…”
    
    

🔁 Example 1: Repetition

Weak Commentary:

The use of repetition makes the reader pay more attention to the speaker’s ideas.

Stronger, In-Depth Commentary:

Churchill’s repetition of “we shall” in his wartime address functions as both a rhetorical anchor and a psychological reinforcement. In the midst of uncertainty and fear during World War II, this phrase becomes a verbal drumbeat of resolve. By repeating “we shall” before each envisioned act of resistance, Churchill not only unites a fractured British audience but subtly shifts the focus from the looming threat of Nazi invasion to the unwavering will of the British people. The repetition mirrors the unrelenting determination he hopes to instill in the public—one that aligns with his purpose of galvanizing morale and projecting national strength both internally and to international allies.

😢 Example 2: Anecdote

Weak Commentary:

The author uses a sad anecdote to make the audience feel bad.

Stronger, In-Depth Commentary:

The author’s use of a personal anecdote detailing a family’s struggle to afford life-saving medication does more than evoke sympathy; it strategically dismantles abstract opposition to healthcare reform. In a debate often dominated by statistics and policy jargon, the anecdote forces the audience to confront the tangible consequences of inaction. For readers who may initially oppose government intervention in healthcare, the story bypasses ideological defenses by presenting a human face to the issue. In this way, the speaker leverages pathos not as emotional manipulation, but as a gateway to reframe the policy discussion in moral, rather than political, terms—crucial for persuading a hesitant or divided audience.

❓ Example 3: Rhetorical Question

Weak Commentary:

The rhetorical question makes the reader think about the issue.

Stronger, In-Depth Commentary:

The rhetorical question, “How many more species must vanish before we act?” functions as an ethical challenge aimed at an audience inclined to view climate change as a distant or debatable issue. By framing the question with a sense of inevitability and loss, the speaker places the burden of accountability on the audience, implicitly suggesting that silence equals complicity. In the context of growing global environmental concern, the question creates a moment of cognitive dissonance—forcing even indifferent readers to confront their personal role in collective inaction. This move aligns with the speaker’s purpose of inciting urgency and ethical responsibility, turning passive observers into morally implicated stakeholders.

🧠 Example 4: Formal Diction

Weak Commentary:

The use of formal diction shows the writer is smart.

Stronger, In-Depth Commentary:

The writer’s use of precise and elevated diction—terms like “pedagogical imperative” and “intellectual rigor”—serves to establish ethos within an academic discourse community that prizes analytical clarity and scholarly authority. This strategic elevation of language isn't merely to sound intelligent; it’s tailored to appeal to an audience of policymakers and educators who are more likely to respond favorably to arguments grounded in professionalism and expertise. In the context of a debate over curriculum reform, where emotional appeals may fall flat, this diction positions the author as a credible voice worthy of influence, subtly reinforcing their position not just through logic, but through tone and intellectual alignment with the audience.