In an early class we discussed the 10 Essential Components of a Letter to the Editor. In the days since, we’ve spent time looking for evidence of those components in actual letters.
Today, you’ll analyze the effectiveness of one letter from a batch of letters. But first, you’ll need to read the article the letters respond to.
Once you understand the arguments advanced by authors Michael Kimmel and Gloria Steinem, briefly scan the batch of letters devoted to this discussion of the attempt by colleges in California to reframe the debate about consensual sex from “No means no,” to “Yes means yes.”
Which one letter makes the most persuasive case for its author’s point of view? Which of the 10 essential components does the author use most effectively to make the case? Since many letters are very short, most components may be missing. Explain why their exclusion does not harm the letter writer’s argument, or why including those components might improve the argument’s effectiveness.
- Provide your analysis by publishing a Reply to this post.
- Before you begin to comment, identify the letter you’re responding to as in the Sample, number 3.
- I’m greentwinky, responding to Barbara Winslow’s letter (or Alexander Goldstein’s letter, or Jonathan Zimmerman’s letter, or Robert Batterson’s letter, or Dan Subotnik’s letter, or Peter Yates’s letter).
- Following that statement, refer to the author by his or her last name only; for example, “Winslow makes the false claim that . . . .”
- You have just 30 minutes to read the article, scan the letters, and respond to whichever letter you wish. Analyze one letter only.
- Your response is not a letter to the editor. It’s an evaluation of a letter. So you don’t have to include the 10 components in your Reply.