A rhetorical analysis of the New York Times - Essay Example

A rhetorical analysis of the New York Times Cain is seen to first get the attention of the reader by the way she presents her argument: “collaboration is in, but is not always conducive to creativity” (Cain, Para. 1). According to the first commenter, Nathan Mielke, it is apparent that he is a bit concerned about why there is much of talking without walking the talk. Deliberations are on why there is much of plans about collaboration and professional learning communities, but very little is done to effect the plans.

Here, the commenter is using logos in terms of facts and logical reasoning. In fact, this is in support of what Cain termed as collaboration, which lacks creativity. This can be analysed to mean that although there are plans in minds of many people, there lacks mechanisms or ways of executing them. According to Nathan, it is only through autonomy, that this can be realised. The second comment is from, Rebecca. She is also pleased with Cain’s article. Rebecca is also worried that in her school, there has been efforts to restructure several buildings, but unfortunately, she only hears of open plan, which according to her, makes her very nervous (Cain, Para. 4). The way she puts across her statements, it is evident that ethos is strong in her case.

She even argues that after reading the article, she forwarded it to her head of school and the committee dealing with the restructuring plan. This indicates that she found some ethical appeals, and in this case, from a reliable source and expert testimony, bout how collaboration lacks creativity. Maria, the third commenter, on the other hand, argues that group work inhibit her creativity. She further argues that when she is alone she is free to focus task at hand (Cain, Para. 5). Her arguments can be argued to be in logos because she gives accounts of her own experience.

She points out that dealing with groups; she cannot be able to make firm decisions since she has to be rational with the observations of other persons in the group. Cain poses a rhetoric argument that pulls various mixed reactions from readers. Much of this is seen when every commenter tries to justify the issue of lack of creativity and implantation phase of collaborations. Comments or the top three comments use different techniques to catch the attention of the readers that follows them. For example, Maria goes on to point out how disappointed she was because even if there were plans in her school to restructure some buildings, they are only mere talks, which she terms as “open plans”, but without implementation or execution plans.

Emphasis on the importance of putting measures in place in order to implement plans have been emphasised by every person that commented on the article. In another dimension, they portray a technique of putting the reader in the context of wanting to continue with the discussion. In fact, they create a kind of suspense to the reader when they argue that they were eager to read the book. Works cited:Virginia, Heffernan. Comment is King. Web: Susan, Cain. The Rise of the New Groupthink. Web: Rhetorical Triangle website.

Web UBS writing center: writing a rhetoric analysis. Web: