Part A (200-250 words) Refer to research about the film and

Question Description:


The movie is Thank you for smoking, you need to follow the structure of sample that provided in attach file. Also, you need to provide the source link. the layout of source link should be same as simple. at less 3 references


Part A (200-250 words) Refer to research about the film and about rhetoric to (a) describe the main
argument you will make in your presentation and (b) describe plans you and
your team have for using rhetorical strategies to present an interesting and
persuasive discussion.
Part B (200-250 words) Refer to research about culture and communication, intercultural rhetoric or
inclusive style to describe (a) the expectations your audience might have for your
presentation, and (b) strategies you and your team will use to ensure your
presentation will appeal to an audience made up of people from diverse cultural
In both entries you will be rewarded for discussing what this task reveals about
academic communication.
Part A
Our group will discuss rhetoric and sophistry in Thank You for Smoking
(Rietman 2006). When discussing Naylor’s, Finistirre’s, and Holloway’s
speeches, it became clear we need a definition of sophistry and rhetoric. As
the academic, I will define the terms based on Miecznikowski Sheard’s article
“The Public Value of Epideictic Rhetoric” in College English (1996).
Miecznikowski Sheard states that many critics misunderstand epideictic
speech as a form of sophistry, which is “burdened … by suspicions of the
speaker’s self-indulgence and opportunism […] and his distance from the
interests of the community” (768). Accordingly, sophistry is communication in
the speaker’s own interest without concern for community wellbeing. But, for
Miecznikowski Sheard, epideictic speech is actually a form of rhetoric by
speakers who are “ethical individuals, responsible citizens, and conscientious
members of their many communities” (766). Rhetoric is ethical speech that
forms and maintains strong communities. Read alongside Bert Olivier’s claim
that the film “turn[s] against itself” (45) to promote an appreciation of ethical rhetoric, my definitions support the argument that the individual characters are
sophists, but the film is rhetorical.
Our group will recreate the style of communication from the film and the host
will reveal our ploy. For example, I will introduce my definitions with the
sentence: “In my esteemed academic career, I have developed the most
important theory on sophistry to date, a theory so brilliant that we barely need
to hear from the other speakers on the panel”. This will show that my
“character” is selfish and individually focused. Even if I’m convincing, the host
will explain that I’m unethical and, thereby, promote rhetoric.
Part B
Diverse communities in the classroom probably value democratic forms of
communication. In an issue of Rhetoric and Public Affairs (11.3, 2008)
focused on democratic style, or how to communicate in inclusive ways, Darrel
Enck-Wanzer advocates for “intersectional rhetoric”:
I define intersectional rhetoric as a rhetoric that places multiple
discursive forms—speech, embodiment, and/or image—on relatively
equal footing, is not leader-centered, draws from a number of diverse
discursive political and rhetorical conventions, and is constitutive rather
than instrumental. (461)
Such a form of communication uses a range of communication types (audio,
visual, gesture, written) to engage with the preferred styles of communication
of diverse communities. Further, the goal isn’t to convince people of
something (leader-focused) but to help people to develop their own ideas. We
expect students who value learning want to think of their own ideas rather
than be told what to think.
Our presentation will use strategies to ensure inclusive, democratic
participation. The host is preparing a powerpoint slideshow to engage visual
learners and to state in simple, clear language our argument. An argument
written onscreen throughout most of the presentation will help students who
do not speak English as a first language follow the debate. Further, the host is planning to summarise each speaker’s overall main point in clear language.
So, while we will embody our roles, presenting in character with language and
gesture to match our personas (a strategy that will engage people who enjoy
performance as a communication technique), students who are not able to
follow the complex language of, for example, the academic presenter, or who
are not familiar with performance techniques such as parody, will have the
arguments and overall position of the group explained clearly. Works Cited
Enck-Wanzer, Darrel. “A Radical Democratic Style?” Rhetoric and Public
Affairs 11.3 (2008), 459-465. Print.
Miecznikowski Sheard, Cynthia. “The Public Value of Epideictic Rhetoric.”
College English 58.7 (1996), 765-794. Print.
Olivier, Bert. “Pseudo-communication and the Return of the Sophist: Thank
You for Smoking, at First Sight.” Communicatio 33.2 (2007), 45-62.
Rietman, Jason (dir.). Thank You for Smoking. Twentieth Century Fox, 2006.