Blog Post #4

The most common critiques laid upon my rhetorical analysis paper include the overly lengthy introduction, the incomplete explanation of the emotions elicited from the stakeholder’s features, and the underly short conclusion.  There are other critiques: the ostensibly biased and contentious topic of slavery used in the intro, the unclearness of the thesis, the overly large images used, and the absence of tonal and introduction reiteration in the conclusion.

My plan to revise and improve my paper starts with cutting down the hook to a more muted and shortened story about unpaid labor within contemporary society instead of the fierier topic of slavery.  I feel that my second paragraph and the first part of my third could combine into one introduction.  The second part of my third paragraph, excluding the thesis, explains why the NCAA doesn’t want college athletes to be remunerated for their sports participation.  To declutter and formulate the paper in a better way I will move this explanation to my first body paragraph which gives the rhetorical proofs and techniques used in the memorandum addressed to Gov. Gavin Newsom context and reasoning to exist. With my introductory paragraph organized more compendiously, I think that, while lengthy (and consisting of two sentences), my thesis can remain unchanged.  I will also explicitly state how the NCAA is appealing to the belief and support of equality and fairness held by college sports watchers and everyone for that matter.  I will also make more explicit that the NCAA rhetorizes using the appeal to the belief that college athletes deserve their youth and education, not impulsive and complicated professional contracts and lifestyles; a belief held by many.  I will also shorten one of my images.  My second body paragraph can remain unchanged.  Finally, I will add to my conclusion a revisitation of the story/hook about unpaid labor in contemporary society and how it relates to college athletes.