10 Units · 200 Quiz Questions · 35 Flashcards · Diagnostic · Worked Examples · Full-Length Practice Exam
Based on this guide's real question bank — 200 practice questions across 10 units. Slide to match your situation.
In SOAPSTone, what does the 'P' stand for?
P stands for Purpose — what the writer wants the audience to think, feel, or do.
A politician gives a eulogy at a colleague's funeral. What is the OCCASION?
Occasion is the event that prompts the writing — here, the death and funeral.
Which best states a text's PURPOSE?
Purpose must be phrased as an infinitive verb phrase describing the intended effect on the audience.
What is exigence?
Exigence is the specific urgency or problem prompting the writing.
A textbook chapter and a passionate op-ed can share the same subject but differ in what?
Two texts can share a subject but differ completely in purpose and tone.
Which is a CONSTRAINT on a writer?
Constraints are limits like word count, format, or audience expectations.
'Skeptical, yet hopeful' is an example of what SOAPSTone element?
This describes the writer's attitude — tone.
Identifying a speech's specific intended audience (rather than 'everyone') is important because:
Writers tailor their rhetorical choices to a specific audience, not a generic one.
A company's product recall letter is an example of what shaping the occasion?
The recall itself is the event/occasion prompting the letter.
Which correctly separates SUBJECT from PURPOSE?
Subject is the topic; purpose is the intended effect — they must be stated separately.
A CEO's shareholder letter written just after a scandal is shaped mostly by what exigence?
The scandal creates the urgent need (exigence) prompting this specific letter.
Which SOAPSTone element asks 'who is writing or speaking?'
Speaker identifies who is behind the text and what we know about them.
A formal court filing versus a casual text message about the same event differ mainly in what?
The occasion and its constraints shape register/formality even when the underlying subject is the same.
Why is 'the audience is everyone' usually a weak rhetorical analysis claim?
Strong analysis identifies a specific intended audience the rhetorical choices are shaped for.
Which is the best description of TONE, not just a single word?
Tone should be described precisely, and can shift across a passage.
A letter to the editor responding to a specific recent news event best illustrates:
The recent news event is the exigence prompting the letter.
Which best distinguishes SPEAKER from the actual author in some rhetorical texts (e.g., a persona)?
In some texts a constructed persona speaks, distinct from the historical author.
Which SOAPSTone element would you use to analyze WHY a writer chose formal academic language?
Register often reflects choices shaped by both intended audience and occasion.
A graduation speech given right after a school tragedy would have its content most shaped by:
The tragedy is the driving exigence shaping the speech's content and tone.
Which correctly identifies constraints in an opinion column limited to 800 words for a general newspaper audience?
Word limits and audience/publication norms are classic constraints.
An appeal based on the speaker's credentials and trustworthiness is:
Ethos is the appeal to the speaker's credibility and character.
A charity ad showing images of hungry children to evoke sympathy relies primarily on:
Vivid, emotional imagery designed to evoke sympathy is a pathos appeal.
A doctor citing peer-reviewed studies to support a health claim uses primarily:
Data/studies are logos; the doctor's expertise also lends ethos.
'If we allow students one retake, soon no test will ever count' is an example of:
This claims an extreme, unjustified chain reaction from one small step — a slippery slope.
'My opponent wants to cut this program, so he clearly hates poor families' misrepresents the opponent's actual position. This is:
This exaggerates/distorts the opponent's real position to attack a weaker version — a straw man.
'Either we ban the product entirely, or we do nothing at all' ignores middle-ground options. This is:
Presenting only two extreme options when others exist is a false dilemma.
Attacking a scientist's argument by mocking their appearance instead of their data is:
Attacking the person rather than the argument is ad hominem.
'I met three rude tourists from that city, so everyone from there must be rude' is a:
Drawing a broad conclusion from too small a sample is a hasty generalization.
A speaker who fairly acknowledges the opposing view before responding builds:
Fair acknowledgment of opposing views builds credibility/ethos.
Which is the best full analysis, not just labeling?
Strong analysis explains the effect of the device, not just names it.
A veteran discussing the human cost of war through a personal story primarily appeals to:
Personal storytelling evokes emotion (pathos) while firsthand experience also builds ethos.
Which is NOT one of Aristotle's three appeals?
The three classical appeals are ethos, pathos, and logos; kairos (timing) is a related but separate rhetorical concept.
Using vivid, charged language ('this catastrophe will devastate families') primarily builds:
Emotionally charged language is designed to evoke feeling — pathos.
'You can't trust her tax plan, she's not even an economist' dismisses her plan based only on her credentials rather than its content. This mixes:
Dismissing an argument based only on the person's background, without engaging the actual plan, echoes ad hominem reasoning.
A well-supported ethos appeal is generally built through:
Ethos is built through expertise, fairness, and precise, careful language.
Which best explains why using pathos is NOT automatically a logical fallacy?
Pathos is a legitimate classical appeal; it becomes a fallacy only when it replaces valid reasoning deceptively.
'Studies from three major universities all found the same result' primarily supports:
Multiple corroborating studies is evidence-based reasoning — logos.
Identify the fallacy: 'We must ban video games entirely, or violence will completely destroy society.'
This presents only two extremes (false dilemma) and an unjustified extreme chain (slippery slope).
On the exam, why is simply writing 'this is pathos' insufficient?
Analysis must connect the device to its specific effect, not just name it.
A speaker who cites their own years of firsthand field experience is primarily building:
Firsthand experience/credentials build credibility — ethos.
'I have a dream... I have a dream... I have a dream' at the start of successive sentences is:
Repetition at the BEGINNING of successive clauses is anaphora.
'...government of the people, by the people, for the people' repeats a phrase at the END of clauses. This is:
Repetition at the END of successive clauses/phrases is epistrophe.
'Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country' reverses grammatical structure. This is:
A reversal of grammatical structure across clauses is chiasmus.
'The classroom was a zoo' is an example of:
A direct comparison without 'like' or 'as' is a metaphor.
'The wind whispered through the trees' gives human qualities to wind. This is:
Giving human qualities to something nonhuman is personification.
'Brave as a lion' uses which figure of speech?
A comparison using 'as' (or 'like') is a simile.
'I've told you a million times' is:
Deliberate exaggeration for effect is hyperbole.
Calling a disastrous storm 'a bit of bad weather' is an example of:
Deliberately downplaying something for effect is understatement.
'Do you really think that plan will work?' asked with no expectation of a literal answer is a:
A question asked for effect, not a literal answer, is rhetorical.
Saying 'Great job' sarcastically after someone makes a mistake is an example of:
Saying the opposite of what is meant, often to criticize, is verbal irony.
'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times' places two contrasting ideas in parallel structure. This is:
Placing contrasting ideas in parallel grammatical structure is antithesis.
Placing a description of extreme wealth directly next to a description of extreme poverty to highlight the contrast is:
Placing two things side by side to highlight contrast is juxtaposition.
'She has a heart of stone' is:
A direct comparison ('heart' equated with 'stone') without 'like/as' is a metaphor.
Repeating the last word of one clause at the start of the next ('Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.') is:
Repeating the final word of one clause at the start of the next is anadiplosis.
Naming 'anaphora' correctly but never explaining its effect earns:
Identification alone is insufficient; effect on the reader/argument must be explained.
Which requires attention to CONTEXT to correctly identify?
Irony depends on context contradicting the literal words, unlike devices identifiable from wording alone.
'Fair is foul, and foul is fair' from Macbeth is an example of:
This places contrasting ideas ('fair'/'foul') in a balanced, reversed structure.
A list of parallel infinitive phrases ('to run, to jump, to swim') used for rhythm and balance is:
Repeating a grammatical structure across a series is parallelism.
Which distinguishes simile from metaphor?
The comparison word 'like'/'as' is present in a simile but absent in a metaphor.
'The stars danced in the night sky' is:
Giving stars the human action of dancing is personification.
'Slender' and 'skinny' can share a denotation but differ in:
They describe the same literal quality but carry different emotional associations — connotation.
A word's literal, dictionary meaning is its:
Denotation is a word's literal definition.
Choosing elevated, precise vocabulary over casual everyday words reflects:
Elevated, precise word choice is formal diction.
A string of short, blunt sentences in a row typically creates:
Short sentences often create emphasis, bluntness, or urgency.
A single long sentence with many clauses piling on top of each other can create a sense of:
Long, complex sentences can build accumulation or momentum.
A deliberate sentence fragment used for effect creates:
Fragments used deliberately draw sharp emphasis to an isolated idea.
Mixing short and long sentences throughout a passage primarily controls:
Sentence variety controls pacing and keeps the reader engaged.
A transition word like 'however' appearing mid-passage most likely signals:
Contrast transitions often mark a shift in tone or idea.
Which is the more precise tone word?
Precise tone words like 'indignant' are stronger than vague words like 'bad' or 'negative.'
Writing in first person ('I believe...') primarily creates:
First person creates a personal, intimate connection and speaker authority.
Writing in third person, avoiding 'I,' typically creates a sense of:
Third person tends to create distance and an impression of objectivity.
The combination of a writer's characteristic diction, syntax, and tone is called their:
Style is the recognizable combination of diction, syntax, and tone across a writer's work.
Concrete, sensory diction ('the acrid smell of smoke') mainly creates:
Concrete, sensory words create vivid images for the reader.
Abstract diction ('justice,' 'freedom,' 'progress') tends to create a more:
Abstract, conceptual words create a more analytical, less sensory tone.
How formal or informal language is, relative to the occasion, is called:
Register describes the formality level of language relative to context.
A passage that starts admiring and shifts to critical midway shows:
This is a clear example of a tone shift within a single passage.
Which is a mistake to avoid when discussing syntax and diction?
Diction and syntax should be discussed as tools that build tone, not in isolation.
Assuming short sentences always signal 'simple ideas' is a mistake because:
Short sentences frequently emphasize complex or weighty points, not just simple ones.
'The committee shall convene' vs. 'let's get together' differ mainly in:
These phrases describe the same action with very different formal vs. casual diction/register.
'The negotiations collapsed. Talks failed. Trust was gone.' uses short syntax primarily to create:
The clipped, short sentences create emphasis and a sense of blunt finality.
An argument claiming something is TRUE or FALSE and can be verified is a claim of:
A claim of fact asserts something verifiable as true or false.
'The school should ban cell phones during class' is a claim of:
Arguing something SHOULD or should NOT be done is a claim of policy.
'Cheating is morally wrong' is a claim of:
Arguing something is good, bad, right, or wrong is a claim of value.
A specific personal story used to make an abstract point concrete is:
A specific story/example is anecdotal evidence.
Citing a peer-reviewed study's data supports an argument primarily through:
Numerical/data-based evidence is statistical evidence.
Quoting a leading scientist's opinion on climate change borrows credibility through:
Citing an authority's opinion is expert testimony, which lends ethos.
Restating what evidence says without explaining its significance is:
Restating WHAT evidence says, without explanation, is summary.
Explaining WHY a piece of evidence supports the thesis is:
Analysis explaining why evidence matters is commentary.
A recommended ratio of evidence to commentary in a strong paragraph is roughly:
Strong paragraphs favor more commentary/analysis than raw evidence.
The logical thread connecting a thesis through evidence to a coherent argument is called the:
This is the definition of a line of reasoning.
Each body paragraph in a strong essay should:
Paragraphs should build the argument forward, not repeat the same point.
Evidence presented without ever connecting back to the thesis is a weakness because:
Every piece of evidence needs explicit commentary connecting it to the thesis.
A strong thesis usually combines which claim types?
Strong theses often blend claim types into one specific, arguable position.
Which is the best example of commentary, not summary?
This explains the significance of the evidence rather than just restating it.
A paragraph that only restates evidence in different words, without analysis, is best described as:
Restating evidence without analysis is summary, not commentary.
Why is repeating the same underlying point across multiple paragraphs a weakness?
Genuine line of reasoning requires each paragraph to add something new.
Which type of evidence draws a parallel to a past event to support a claim?
Referencing a past event or precedent is historical evidence.
'So what?' is the question that commentary should answer because it:
Commentary should always explain the significance ('so what') of the evidence.
A claim asserting 'social media usage has tripled since 2015' is a claim of:
This is a verifiable factual claim.
Which best shows a logical LINE OF REASONING across paragraphs?
Each paragraph builds a distinct, connected part of the overall argument.
An effective thesis should be:
An effective thesis takes a specific, defensible position someone could disagree with.
'In this essay, I will discuss climate change' is a weak thesis because it:
This merely announces the topic rather than making a claim.
A topic sentence should:
A strong topic sentence makes a specific claim, guiding the paragraph's argument.
Acknowledging a valid point on the opposing side before returning to your own argument is called:
Acknowledging a fair opposing point is a concession.
Directly refuting an opposing point by explaining its flaw is called:
Explaining why an opposing point is flawed or less compelling is a rebuttal.
Ignoring the strongest counterarguments to your position tends to:
Ignoring strong counterarguments makes the writer appear one-sided, weakening credibility.
A transition word should primarily show:
Transitions should reveal logical relationships like contrast or cause-effect, not just connect sentences.
'Also' and 'another thing' are often weak transitions because they show:
These words only signal addition, not deeper logical connections.
An effective conclusion typically:
A strong conclusion extends significance rather than just repeating the thesis.
Introducing a completely new, unsupported argument in the conclusion is considered:
New unsupported arguments in a conclusion weaken structural coherence.
A body paragraph missing commentary that ties evidence back to the thesis is:
Every body paragraph needs commentary linking evidence explicitly to the thesis.
Why should an introduction establish context briefly before the thesis?
Brief context orients the reader efficiently before the thesis arrives.
A concession followed immediately by a strong rebuttal demonstrates:
Concession + rebuttal shows fair, credible engagement with opposing views.
Which shows a genuine LOGICAL transition, not just addition?
'Despite this' signals a clear logical (concessive/contrastive) relationship.
A thesis that simply restates a factual prompt statement is weak because it:
A thesis must be arguable; a bare fact restatement isn't.
Which paragraph structure element ties the evidence back to the paragraph's claim?
Closing commentary should tie the evidence explicitly back to the thesis/claim.
A well-organized essay's paragraphs should:
Deliberate paragraph order helps build a coherent, logical argument.
Which best represents a genuine counterargument being engaged, not dismissed?
Genuine engagement requires presenting the opposing view fairly before rebutting it.
Which best distinguishes a concession from a rebuttal?
Concession = acknowledge; rebuttal = refute — they are distinct, often paired, moves.
A conclusion that only repeats the thesis word-for-word is considered:
Strong conclusions go beyond simple restatement to broaden significance.
The synthesis essay primarily requires the writer to:
The synthesis essay is the writer's own argument, using sources as support.
What is the minimum number of sources that must be cited in the synthesis essay?
At least three of the provided sources must be cited.
Organizing a synthesis essay strictly source-by-source ('Source A says... Source B says...') is:
Source-by-source organization tends to become summary instead of a genuine argument.
A synthesis essay should be organized primarily around:
Strong synthesis essays organize by the writer's own points, not by source.
Using a source to acknowledge and then rebut a counterargument is:
Sources can be used strategically to address counterarguments, not just support the main claim.
A 'qualified' thesis on the synthesis prompt (agreeing with conditions/nuance) is:
A specific, qualified position is a legitimate and often strong approach.
A vague thesis that doesn't commit to any real position on the synthesis prompt is:
Vague, noncommittal theses fail to take a defensible position.
Citing a source and then explaining how it supports your specific claim demonstrates:
Sources need commentary connecting them to the writer's own argument.
Which is the best way to select sources for the synthesis essay?
Sources should be chosen strategically to support the writer's specific line of reasoning.
Citing sources by their letter (e.g., 'Source B') or clear paraphrase, rather than quoting at length, is generally:
Concise citation paired with analysis is generally more effective than long unanalyzed quotes.
A synthesis essay that could be outlined using ONLY the writer's own claims (sources filling in support) is:
This shows the essay is organized by argument, not merely summarizing sources.
Anticipating the strongest counterargument to your synthesis position and addressing it with a source is:
Addressing the strongest counterargument, supported by a source, strengthens the essay.
Which best distinguishes synthesis from summary?
Synthesis is argument-driven; summary is restatement without a governing claim.
Why is using FEWER than three sources a problem on the synthesis essay?
At least three sources must be cited to meet the task's requirements.
A synthesis essay thesis that says 'Some believe X, others believe Y' without taking a position is:
A thesis must commit to a specific, defensible position, not just describe both sides.
Which best represents strategic sourcing to acknowledge a counterargument?
This acknowledges the counterpoint, then explains why the writer's position still holds — using sources purposefully.
Why might a writer use a source they don't fully agree with in a synthesis essay?
Sources can be used to represent and then rebut opposing views.
A synthesis essay entirely organized as 'Source A, then Source B, then Source C' with no unifying claim across paragraphs is:
This organization pattern fails to build a genuine, unified argument.
Which best reflects a synthesis essay's core goal?
The synthesis essay's core goal is the writer's argument, supported by sources.
Which best shows a synthesis essay citation properly paired with commentary?
This pairs the citation with commentary explaining its significance to the argument.
The rhetorical analysis essay primarily asks the writer to:
Rhetorical analysis focuses on HOW the argument is built, not whether the reader agrees with it.
The single most common error in rhetorical analysis essays is:
Students often mistakenly argue the topic itself instead of analyzing HOW the writer argues.
A strong rhetorical analysis thesis should:
An effective thesis names purpose and previews the specific strategies discussed.
How many rhetorical strategies should a strong essay typically focus on?
A few well-developed strategies are stronger than many shallow ones.
'This metaphor is used' without further explanation is an example of:
Quote-dropping — citing a device without explaining its effect — is a common weakness.
Which move should ALWAYS follow identifying a rhetorical device?
Device identification must be followed by an explanation of its effect.
Strategy-based essay structure means organizing body paragraphs by:
Strategy-based structure devotes each paragraph to tracing one strategy across the passage.
Chronological essay structure organizes body paragraphs by:
Chronological structure follows the passage's actual sequence.
Choosing strategies you can trace across MULTIPLE parts of a passage, rather than a single isolated line, is important because:
Tracing a strategy across the passage allows for deeper, more convincing analysis.
Effects identified in rhetorical analysis should tie back to:
All analyzed effects should connect back to the overall purpose stated in the thesis.
Why should a rhetorical analysis essay start by identifying the rhetorical situation?
Establishing the rhetorical situation grounds the entire analysis that follows.
A rhetorical analysis essay that spends a whole paragraph arguing the topic is wrong (e.g., disagreeing with the writer's stance) is:
Arguing the topic itself, rather than analyzing the writer's rhetoric, is off-task.
Explaining WHY a specific word was chosen over an alternative demonstrates:
Explaining specific word choices over alternatives shows precise, strong analysis.
Which best completes a device-to-effect analysis: 'The anaphora of "we must"...'?
This explains the specific effect on the audience, completing the device-to-effect move.
Each body paragraph in a rhetorical analysis essay needs its own:
Each paragraph should make its own specific claim about a strategy's effect.
Analyzing a persuasive speech, a student instead explains why they personally disagree with the speaker's cause. This essay:
This confuses rhetorical analysis with an argument essay about the topic itself.
A rhetorical analysis thesis that only restates the passage's topic, without naming strategies or purpose, is:
A strong thesis must go beyond topic restatement to name purpose and strategies.
Which is a valid organizational approach for rhetorical analysis?
Both structures are valid as long as the essay's reasoning is clear and well-organized.
Discussing 5+ rhetorical devices shallowly, with one sentence each, compared to 2-3 devices in depth, is generally:
A few well-developed strategies produce stronger analysis than many shallow ones.
Which best reflects analyzing a shift in strategy across a passage's structure?
Tracking how strategies shift across the passage shows sophisticated structural analysis.
The argument essay primarily asks the writer to:
Unlike synthesis or rhetorical analysis, the argument essay is entirely the writer's own claim and evidence.
Unlike the synthesis essay, the argument essay:
The argument essay has no provided sources; the writer supplies their own evidence.
Which is considered valid evidence in an argument essay?
A wide range of evidence types are valid, as long as they're specific and relevant.
One or two well-developed examples with real commentary is generally:
Depth of development matters more than sheer quantity of examples.
Restating the prompt itself as the thesis in an argument essay is:
A thesis must be the writer's own specific position, not a restatement of the prompt.
A 'qualified' thesis ('X is true, except when...') in an argument essay often demonstrates:
Nuanced, qualified positions often show more sophisticated thinking than absolute claims.
Addressing a counterargument in the argument essay, then explaining why your position still holds, primarily demonstrates:
Engaging counterarguments shows awareness of complexity and strengthens the essay.
Which is an example of vague, unverifiable 'evidence' to avoid?
Vague appeals to unnamed 'studies' lack the specificity of real evidence.
Explaining the broader implications or stakes of an argument is one way to demonstrate:
Broader implications/stakes are a recognized marker of sophisticated argumentation.
Vivid, effective writing style alone (without complex reasoning) is:
Sophistication requires substantive complexity of reasoning, not just polished prose.
Making nuanced distinctions ('this is true in some contexts but not others') shows:
Nuanced context-dependent claims demonstrate sophisticated thinking.
Ignoring the counterargument entirely in an argument essay tends to make the essay seem:
Ignoring counterarguments weakens the perceived completeness of the reasoning.
Which best shows specific, well-developed evidence rather than a vague generality?
The specific, detailed example is far stronger than the vague general statements.
An argument essay may take which kind of position on the given claim?
Any well-supported, defensible position is acceptable.
Why must argument-essay evidence be 'verifiably true or at least reasonably plausible'?
Invented or implausible 'facts' damage the writer's ethos/credibility.
A basic thesis-evidence-conclusion structure without further nuance is generally scored as:
Basic structure can be competent, but sophistication requires going beyond it with nuance.
Which best reflects addressing complexity in an argument essay?
Acknowledging exceptions while still defending the general position shows nuanced, complex thinking.
In an argument essay, personal experience as evidence is:
Personal experience is valid evidence when specific and relevant to the claim.
Which best distinguishes the argument essay from the synthesis essay?
This is the defining structural difference between the two essay types.
Which best demonstrates addressing the 'stakes' of an argument for sophistication credit?
Explaining real-world stakes/implications is a recognized way to show sophistication.
'I went to the store, I bought milk' joined only by a comma is a:
Two independent clauses joined only by a comma is a comma splice.
'Running quickly to the store.' with no subject or complete thought is a:
This lacks a complete subject-verb thought and cannot stand alone — a fragment.
'I went to the store I bought milk' with no punctuation at all connecting the clauses is a:
Independent clauses joined with no punctuation or connector at all form a run-on.
The best fix for a comma splice is:
Comma splices are fixed with a period, semicolon, or conjunction — not just removing the comma.
'To run, jumping, and swim' violates:
The list mixes grammatical forms (infinitive, gerund, base verb) instead of matching them.
The corrected parallel version of 'to run, jumping, and swim' is:
All three items should share the same grammatical form — infinitives here.
'The list of items are on the table' contains what error?
The singular subject 'list' requires the singular verb 'is,' not 'are.'
Which correctly demonstrates subject-verb agreement despite intervening words?
'Box' (singular) is the true subject, so it takes 'is,' regardless of the intervening 'of old books.'
A multiple-choice reading question asking for a passage's main claim tests:
Main-claim questions test comprehension of the passage's overall argument.
When answering a reading multiple-choice question, you should always:
Verifying against the actual passage text is the most reliable strategy.
A 'half-right' wrong answer choice is one that is:
Distractors are often plausible-sounding but not supported by the specific passage.
A writing multiple-choice question asking for the 'best transition' tests:
Writing questions test a student's ability to revise for clarity, logic, and fit.
A question asking 'which choice best maintains the established tone' requires:
Tone-matching questions require attention to the surrounding passage's tone.
A question asking which choice would be 'LEAST effective' requires:
Some questions invert the usual logic and ask for the least effective/worst choice.
'Everyone must bring their own laptop' mixing a singular antecedent ('everyone') with a plural pronoun ('their') is an example (in the strict formal usage tested) of:
'Everyone' is singular, so strict formal usage pairs it with a singular pronoun form.
Fixing a comma splice by just deleting the comma with nothing else added typically creates:
Removing only the comma, with no replacement punctuation, creates a run-on.
A question asking where to best place a sentence within a paragraph tests:
Placement questions test understanding of a paragraph's logical organization.
Which sentence demonstrates correct parallel structure?
All three items share the same gerund ('-ing') form, making the structure parallel.
Why is it important to read the multiple-choice question stem carefully before answering?
Careful reading prevents missing inverted questions (e.g., 'least effective,' 'should be deleted').
'Neither the teacher nor the students was ready' should actually use which verb to agree with the nearer subject?
With 'neither...nor,' the verb agrees with the subject closer to it — 'students' (plural) takes 'were.'
| Appeal | Targets | Built through |
|---|---|---|
| Ethos | Credibility | Credentials, fairness, careful language |
| Pathos | Emotion | Vivid imagery, anecdotes, charged language |
| Logos | Logic | Statistics, data, clear reasoning |
| Fallacy | What it does |
|---|---|
| Ad hominem | Attacks the person, not the argument |
| Straw man | Misrepresents an argument as weaker to attack it |
| False dilemma | Presents only two options when more exist |
| Slippery slope | Claims one step inevitably leads to an extreme end |
| Hasty generalization | Draws a broad conclusion from too small a sample |
| Essay | Core task |
|---|---|
| Synthesis | Your argument, using ≥3 provided sources as support |
| Rhetorical Analysis | HOW a writer builds their argument, not whether you agree |
| Argument | Your position, defended with your own evidence — no provided sources |