Please write an analysis of ONE of the following:

Go Ahead, Speak for Yourself by Kwame Anthony Appiah (pgs. 114-115)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/opinion/sunday/speak-for-yourself.html

How Do You Explain the ‘Obvious’ by Nausicaa Renner (pgs. 117-119)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/magazine/how-do-you-explain-the-obvious.html

The Checklist for Analyzing a Text will be extremely helpful to you as you develop your analysis. You are welcome to do outside research, whether for context or other responses to the text; however, this is neither required nor necessary to complete this task effectively.

Essentially, you are writing a rhetorical analysis, which should include:

A solid summary of the text: what it is saying, what it is arguing, and why that is important
Identification of the authors thesis, intended audience, message, purpose, and rhetorical methods used
A clear thesis: Your judgment regarding the effectiveness of the text or argument that it makes
Reasonable support for your conclusions: analysis of the text should be supported by evidence from the text itself.

Requirements and Assessment Criteria:

MLA format (including works cited and in-text citations for your chosen article, along with any optional outside research utilized).
1200-1500 words (not including works cited).
Clarity of thought: Your ideas should flow logically from one to the next
Spelling and grammar: Your essay should be proofread and free of sentence level errors
In addition to the basic requirements listed above, when I read your argument analyses, I will be looking for evidence of the criteria listed in the Checklist for Writing an Analysis of an Argument

A Checklist for analyzing a text:
Have I considered all the following matters?
– Does the author have a self-interest in writing this piece?
– Is there evidence in the author’s tone and style that enables me to identify anything about the intended audience? Is the tone appropriate?
– Given the publication venue (or any other contexts), can I tell if the audience is likely to be neutral, sympathetic, or hostile to the argument?
– Does the author have a thesis? Does the argument ask the audience to accept or to do anything?
– Does the author make assumptions? Does the audience share those assumptions? Do I?
– Is there a clear line between what is factual information and what is interpretation, belief, or opinion?
– Does the author appeal to reason (logos), to the emotions (pathos), or to our sense that the speaker is trustworthy (ethos)?
– Is there evidence provided convincing? If visual materials such as graphs, pie charts, or pictures are used, are they persuasive?
– Are significant objections and counterevidence adequately discussed?
– Is the organization of the text effective? Are the title, the opening paragraphs, and the concluding paragraphs effective?
– Is the overall argument correct in its conclusions? Or is there anything missing that I could use to add to or challenge the argument?
– Has the author convinced me?

Octavio Paz is credited with being one of the leading intellectuals of “mexicanidad.”  In the three poems you have read, how do you see Paz’s exploration of his Mexican identity?  Is there something universal in the poems that speaks to you and your own sense of identity (even if you are not Mexican)?  Why or why not are these poems personally resonant to you.

Background information on Octavio Paz

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/octavio-paz

Text of Poem #1 “Proem”

https://poets.org/poem/proem

Text of Poem #2 “The Street”

https://allpoetry.com/The–Street-

Text of Poem #3 “Dawn”

https://allpoetry.com/poem/13578062-Dawn-by-Octavio-Paz

Both the novel, Waiting for the Barbarians, and the film, Burn! are critiques of colonialism and nationalism.  How did you respond personally to these two texts?  Did you find their critiques to be compelling?  Do you personally respond more to the novel or the film?  Were there aspects to the style of the novel and/or the production values of the film that impacted the way you felt about the subjects?