Name: _____________________________ Block: ________

Argument & Debate Mastery Work #2: Rhetoric in Julius Caesar

For your second Mastery Work assignment you will be analyzing how different characters in William
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar support their claims through using rhetorical techniques (logos, pathos and ethos).

Task: A 3-4 page synthesis paper that answers the question: Who delivered the more rhetorically effective
speech, Mark Antony or Marcus Brutus? In crafting your paper, include a precise thesis statement that is
supported by relevant and sufficient evidence and valid reasoning. Be sure to use evidence from both funeral
speeches, being sure to distinguish claims from alternate and opposing claims (counterclaim). Use the rubric,
your annotated speeches, graphic organizer and peer comments to guide the creation of your final draft.

Format:

 Typed, Size 12, Times New Roman font, double spaced.

 Include a heading with your name, date, block, and teacher's name.

What must be included in your paper:

 An introductory paragraph that has a precise thesis statement that is derived from your reading.
 Evidence from both speeches (Brutus' and Marc Antony's) across three TE/EA paragraphs.
 A counterclaim paragraph with a rebuttal.
 A concluding paragraph (total six paragraphs)
 An MLA style works cited page.

Standards for the paper:

 Your essay must be written in academic language.
 You must explain your evidence with detail and context! Write as though your reader has no
background information about your topic.
 Follow formatting standards! If you have the improper format, you will lose points on the essay.

DUE DATES:
 First Draft: ____________________________

 Final Draft: ____________________________

DO NOT LOSE THIS SHEET!!!

You must also submit this handout with both your FIRST DRAFT and FINAL DRAFT.

The rubric must be facing FORWARD.

 4 3 2 1
Intro & Thesis -Introduction provides -Introduction provides -Introduction provides -Introduction does not
context for the rest of insufficient context for little context for the provide context for the
the paper. the rest of the paper. paper. paper.
-Thesis is explicit, -Thesis is lacking in -Thesis is implicit -Thesis is undetectable
clear, and well- clarity. and/or hard to find. and/or
reasoned. - Thesis lacks confusing/unclear
reasoning.
Body - Each paragraph has a - Each paragraph has a - Paragraphs do not - Main point is unclear
Paragraphs & well-supported, clearly clear main point. have clear main point. and/or missing.
Analysis of stated main point. -Source text -Incomplete or - Poor and/or no
rhetoric -Source text is contextualized well. confusing contextualization of
thoroughly and - Analysis is supported, contextualization of evidence.
effectively but lacks evidence. - Analysis of source
contextualized. sophistication and/or - Analysis incomplete text not supported by
-Well supported could be improved. and/or confusing. examples and/or
analysis of rhetorical - Little support is missing/incoherent.
appeals (ethos, pathos, provided
logos).
Counterclaim - Develops - Discusses - Makes note of or - Does not
counterclaim(s) or counterclaim(s) or demonstrates demonstrate
alternate claim(s) fairly alternate claims awareness of a specific awareness of a
with relevant and/or evidence. counterclaim, alternate counterclaim.
evidence; - Rebuttal is lacking claim, or counter- - Missing counterclaim
- Explains why sophistication. evidence. paragraph of a
counterclaim is less - No clear rebuttal. counterclaim, alternate
convincing than the claim, or counter-
claim (rebuttal). evidence.
Organization - Smooth flow of ideas - Flow of ideas could - Ideas do not always - Sequence of ideas
ordered in a logical be more effectively flow in a logical, and paragraphs seems
sequence that sequenced. cohesive manner aimless and haphazard.
effectively guides the - Most evidenced cited - Most evidence cited - Almost all evidence
reader. correctly, may be a incorrectly or not cited cited incorrectly or not
- All evidence cited minor error. at all. cited at all.
correctly.
Conclusion -Conclusion restates - Conclusion fails to - Conclusion makes - Conclusion seems
but does not repeat restate thesis insufficient reference unrelated to the rest of
thesis. effectively. to thesis or simply the paper.
-Sums up main points -Sums up main points. repeats thesis. - Conclusion is too
- Provides cohesion to - Leaves somewhat of a - No sense of cohesion brief.
whole paper. final impression. or final impression.
Language use - Superior editing with - Good editing with few - Careless editing with - No editing with many
& Mechanics limited errors error several errors per errors throughout
- Good use of academic - Very few problems paragraph - Informal or
English. with using academic - Informal language inappropriate
- No formatting issues English. used in multiple language.
- May be one issue instances. - Several formatting
with formatting. - Several formatting issues (shows
issues. disregard).

RUBRIC SCORE: _________ = ____________/100

Julius Caesar: Cassius' Speech (Act I, Scene II)
Rhetorical Analysis Sentence Stems

In his speech to Brutus, Cassius claims that ____________________(what is Cassius'

claim?). Cassius appeals to Brutus' _____________ (Choose one: emotions, logic, sense of
credibility) when he __________(verb) "_________" (cite quote). Basically, Cassius
_____________________ (summarize the quote, what is it SAYING?) in order to
__________________ (What is his purpose? What is he DOING?). Cassius also appeal to
Brutus' (Choose a second appeal: emotions, logic, sense of credibility) when he ________(verb)
"______________" (cite quote). In other words, Cassius _____________________ (summarize the
quote, what is it SAYING?) so that __________________ (What is his purpose? What is he
DOING?). This evidence suggests that _________________________________________ (Analyze
the evidence and discuss its significance to his original claim).

In the play Jonathan Coogler, a man gets killed by his closest friends and his enemies. Jonathan Coogler
was running to become the president of Pandora and throughout his campaign he had people plotting to stop
him winning before he even had the chance. The killing was encouraged and planned by a man named Brian.
Tommy has been excluded from the meeting in which the killing took place so that the underlords were able
to get Coogler. On the other hand, Michael had actually participated in the murder even though he was closest
to Coogler and presented his side along with Tommy. The speeches were to tell the people of Pandora when
Coogler died and their roles behind his death.

In the play Jonathan Coogler by Mary Moynihan it's about a guy named Jonathan Coogler who reigns
and becomes president of Pandora but before he could become president his assassination was planned by
Brian and Michael who were both politicians who worked on Coogler's team and so was Tommy.
Name: _____________________________ Block: ________

Argument & Debate Mastery Work #2: Rhetoric in Julius Caesar

For your second Mastery Work assignment you will be analyzing how different characters in William
Shakespeare's Julius Caesar support their claims through using rhetorical techniques (logos, pathos and ethos).
You will create a small portfolio of the work you have done examining the different speeches which will
include:

 Analytical Paragraph for Cassius' speech to Brutus (20 pts)

 Analytical Paragraph for Brutus' soliloquy (20 pts)
 A 2-3 page synthesis paper that answers the question: Who delivered the more rhetorically effective
speech, Mark Antony or Marcus Brutus? (60 pts)

All work for your Mastery assignment must be:

 Typed, Size 12, Times New Roman font

 Include a heading with your name, date, block, and teacher's name

DUE DATE: March 24, 2017

RUBRIC
4 3 2 1
Analytical - Develops analysis - Analysis developed - Analyses of - Little to no success
Paragraph #1: with evidence and with evidence and strategies are in analyzing how
Cassius to explanation that are explanations that are inaccurate. author uses
Brutus appropriate and appropriate and - Inadequately rhetorical strategies.
convincing. sufficient. analyze how - Misread the
- Clear understanding - Adequately organize author uses passage,
of rhetorical how author uses rhetorical misunderstood the
techniques. rhetorical strategies. strategies. prompt and/or failed
- Sophisticated - Clear distinction - Explanations may to analyze strategies.
distinction between between what the be inappropriate, - Lack of control.
what the text is saying text is saying vs. what insufficient or - Grammatical
vs. what it is doing. it is doing. unconvincing. problems.
Analytical - Develops analysis - Analysis developed - Analyses of - Little to no success
Paragraph #2: with evidence and with evidence and strategies are in analyzing how
Brutus' explanation that are explanations that are inaccurate. author uses
Soliloquy appropriate and appropriate and - Inadequately rhetorical strategies.
convincing. sufficient. analyze how - Misread the
- Clear understanding - Adequately organize author uses passage,
of rhetorical how author uses rhetorical misunderstood the
techniques. rhetorical strategies. strategies. prompt and/or failed
- Sophisticated - Clear distinction - Explanations may to analyze strategies.
distinction between between what the be inappropriate, - Lack of control.
what the text is saying text is saying vs. what insufficient or - Grammatical
vs. what it is doing. it is doing. unconvincing. problems.
 RUBRIC SCORE: _________ Score out of 40: ______________________

Synthesis Paper 4 3 2 1
Intro & Thesis -Intro provides -Intro provides -Intro provides little -Intro does not
context for the rest of insufficient context for context for the paper. provide context for
the paper. the rest of the paper. -Thesis is implicit the paper;
-Thesis is explicit and -Thesis is lacking in and/or hard to find. -Thesis is
clear. clarity. undetectable and/or
confusing/unclear
Body Paragraphs -Source text is -Source text -Incomplete or - Poor and/or no
& thoroughly and contextualized well. confusing contextualization of
Analysis of effectively - Analysis is contextualization of evidence.
rhetoric contextualized. supported, but lacks evidence. - Analysis of source
-Well supported sophisticated and/or - Analysis incomplete text not supported by
analysis of rhetorical could be improved. and/or confusing. examples and/or
appeals (ethos, - Little support is missing/incoherent.
pathos, logos). provided
Organization - Smooth flow of ideas - Flow of ideas could - Ideas do not always - Sequence of ideas
ordered in a logical be more effectively flow in a logical, and paragraphs seems
sequence that sequenced. cohesive manner; aimless and
effectively guides the - Most paragraphs paragraphs do not haphazard.
reader. have clear and have clear and
-Each paragraph has a supported main point. supported main idea.
well-supported,
clearly stated main
point.
Conclusion -Conclusion restates - Conclusion fails to - Conclusion makes - Conclusion seems
but does not repeat restate thesis insufficient reference unrelated to the rest
thesis. effectively. to thesis or simply of the paper.
-Sums up main points -Sums up main points. repeats thesis. - Conclusion is too
- Provides cohesion to - Leaves somewhat of - No sense of cohesion brief.
whole paper. a final impression. or final impression.
Language use & - Superior editing with - Good editing with - Careless editing with - No editing with many
Mechanics limited errors few errors in spelling, several errors per errors throughout in
(spelling, grammar, grammar, word order, paragraph in spelling, spelling, grammar,
word order, word word usage, sentence grammar, word order, word order, word
usage, sentence structure, and word usage, sentence usage, sentence
structure, and punctuation; very few structure, and structure, and
punctuation) problems with using punctuation; informal punctuation; informal
- Good use of academic English. language used in or inappropriate
academic English. multiple instances. language.

RUBRIC SCORE: _________ Score out of 60: ______________________

TOTAL: _______________

THIS PAPER MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH YOUR FINAL DRAFT, STAPLED TO THE BACK.

DO NOT LOSE THIS SHEET!!!

Julius Caesar: Cassius' Speech (Act I, Scene II)
Rhetorical Analysis Sentence Stems

In his speech to Brutus, Cassius claims that ____________________(what is Cassius'

claim?). Cassius appeals to Brutus' _____________ (Choose one: emotions, logic, sense of
credibility) when he __________(verb) "_________" (cite quote). Basically, Cassius
_____________________ (summarize the quote, what is it SAYING?) in order to
__________________ (What is his purpose? What is he DOING?). Cassius also appeal to
Brutus' (Choose a second appeal: emotions, logic, sense of credibility) when he ________(verb)
"______________" (cite quote). In other words, Cassius _____________________ (summarize the
quote, what is it SAYING?) so that __________________ (What is his purpose? What is he
DOING?). This evidence suggests that _________________________________________ (Analyze
the evidence and discuss its significance to his original claim).