Week 6 — Writing Studio / Workshop · "Map the Appeals"

Course: English Composition (ENGL 1A) · Silver Oak University (fictional sample) · Prof. Lindgren
Objective: Objective 4 — analyze how a real text persuades, using the appeals · SLO A (compose a thesis-driven, audience-aware analysis)
Worth 50 points · Writing Studios group = 15% of the grade · Studio 6
Format: a hands-on rhetorical-analysis workshop — you'll map verified moments of a real speech to ethos/pathos/logos, write the effect of each, review against a checklist, get a chatbot's coaching, and then catch the chatbot inventing a quotation when it "analyzes the rhetoric" of the same speech.

This is the course's signature weekly component. Every instructional week has one Writing Studio — a short, practical workshop on the week's craft move. All studio resources are links to external sites; there is nothing to buy or download. The habit every studio builds: draft → review → get feedback → judge the feedback.
The text: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "I Have a Dream" (1963). Read AND listen to it before you start. 🔗 https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm (transcript also at NPR 🔗 https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety)
🔒 The load-bearing rule this week: every quotation must be copied EXACTLY from the archived speech — never from memory, and never from the chatbot. This studio's AI-critique step is built to make that habit reflexive.

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you learned the four appeals — ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), logos (logic/evidence), kairos (timing) — and the move that turns them into analysis: claim → verified evidence → analysis of effect. This studio makes it real on the actual speech: you'll isolate ethos, pathos, and logos in King's "I Have a Dream," map at least one verified moment to each, and explain its effect on the audience. Then you'll do the thing this course cares about most — catch a chatbot inventing a quotation about the very speech you just read. This is the exact skill under the major essay (Assignment 6), so getting it clean here pays off directly.

Read/listen first (~16 min): "I Have a Dream," MLK 🔗 https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm . Read it with a pen, hunting for moves: one spot where King builds credibility, one where he reaches for emotion, one where he uses logic/evidence.

Part 2 — The Appeals Map (the drafting exercise — fill this in)

Find at least one verified moment in the speech for each of the three appeals below. For each: copy the few exact words you'll cite (straight from the archived text — short!), name the move/device if there is one (e.g., anaphora, metaphor, antithesis), and write one or two sentences of EFFECT — how the move works on the audience. Do not summarize the speech; do not say whether you agree with King.

Tips for finding each (the moves are really there — verify the exact words yourself): King grounds himself in the nation's founding promises and a tone of dignity (ethos); he builds emotion through the repeated "dream" refrain and soaring imagery (pathos via anaphora); he frames the broken promise as an unpaid debt — a check returned for insufficient funds (logos via metaphor); and the whole thing sits on the occasion — a century after Emancipation, at the Lincoln Memorial (kairos). Copy the exact words from the link — don't trust your memory.

Part 3 — Turn One Row into a Paragraph (write this)

Pick your strongest row and expand it into one claim → evidence → analysis-of-effect paragraph (~5–7 sentences):
1. Claim about strategy — name the move and the appeal.
2. Evidence — your short, exact quotation (or a precise paraphrase).
3. Analysis of effect — how it creates the appeal and what it does to the audience (2–3 sentences — this is the heart).

Write it now, in a word processor. Don't polish yet — that comes after the review.

Part 4 — Self-Review & Peer-Review (apply the checklist)

Run your map and paragraph through this checklist — first on your own, then trade with a classmate (or reread as a skeptic). Mark ✓ or ✗ and jot one fix:

Then revise the weakest part based on what the checklist surfaced. The most common fix: a row that labels ("pathos") but doesn't explain the effect (add the how/so-what), or a paragraph that drifts into summary (point at a move instead). Keep the before and after — this is the "revise, don't just edit" move from Week 1.

Part 5 — Writing-Coach Moment (required — the BYOAI step)

Bring in your approved chatbot (Gemini, Claude, or ChatGPT) as a coach, not an author.

1. Paste your paragraph (Part 3) and ask: "You are my writing coach. Am I ANALYZING the speech's strategy, or am I just SUMMARIZING what it says or saying whether I agree? Point to specific sentences. Where could my analysis of EFFECT go deeper? Do NOT rewrite it for me, and do NOT add or 'correct' any quotation — I will verify quotations myself."
2. Read its feedback and decide what to act on. Make one improvement in your own words — most often, pushing a label into real analysis of effect.

The coach is a mirror, not a ghostwriter. Use it to see whether you're analyzing strategy or just retelling the speech — then you make the change. (Notice you told it not to touch your quotations. That's deliberate — and Part 6 shows why.)

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment (required — catch the tool inventing a quotation)

Now flip roles and be the editor who judges the tool — against the real speech. This is the signature danger of the week.

1. Ask the same chatbot: "Analyze the rhetoric of Martin Luther King's 'I Have a Dream' speech, and support each point with a direct quotation from the speech."
2. Open the archived text (linked above) and audit every quotation the AI gives, word for word:
   - Fabricated or misattributed quotation — is each "quotation" actually in this speech, verbatim? Chatbots routinely invent plausible-sounding lines King never said, mis-word real ones, or attribute to King a phrase from a different speech (or a different speaker entirely). If you can't find it word-for-word in the archived text, it's fabricated — that's the catch.
   - Label-not-analysis — does the AI just list appeals ("this uses ethos, pathos, and logos") without explaining the effect? That's the empty move we killed this week.
3. Write 3–4 sentences reporting: at least one quotation you checked and whether it was real (found verbatim), mis-worded, or invented; and one place the AI labeled without analyzing. If a quotation was wrong, give the correct version copied exactly from the archived text (or note that no such line exists).

The habit all term: the tool drafts, you verify — every quotation, against the real text. This is the single most dangerous AI habit in writing: it will hand you a confident, perfectly formatted quotation that King never said. A fabricated or misattributed quotation is an integrity violation whether a human or an AI produced it — and catching it is exactly the skill that protects you on the major essay and every research paper after it.

Part 7 — What to Submit

Submit a single document (or text entry) with: your completed Appeals Map (Part 2, with exact-quote moments + effects); your claim→evidence→effect paragraph (Part 3); your checklist marks + the revised part (Part 4); a one-line note on the coach feedback you acted on (Part 5); and your Part 6 AI-critique paragraph (quotation verdict — real / mis-worded / invented — + a label-not-analysis catch). Due Sunday, Oct 11, 11:59 p.m. (50 points).

Instructor answer key & model — REMOVE BEFORE PUBLISHING TO STUDENTS

Students write their own map and paragraph, so selections and wording vary. The models below grade the quality of the analysis and the integrity of the quotations, not specific words. Every feature named here was verified word-for-word against the archived speech (American Rhetoric / NPR transcript); where a phrase is quoted it is short and exact, and most points are made by describing the move. No quotation in this key is fabricated or misattributed. If a student quotes a moment, confirm the wording against the link.

Model — Appeals Map (verified moments; effects in the instructor's own words):
- Ethos: King grounds his demand in the nation's founding promises — the Declaration's "unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" — and in a tone of "dignity and discipline." Effect: he speaks as one calling America to keep its own word, which lowers a wary audience's resistance before the argument advances. (Quoted phrases verified.)
- Pathos: the anaphora of "I have a dream that one day…," repeated across successive sentences, each widening the vision. Effect: turns one private hope into a shared, almost visible future, so an abstract demand for rights feels concrete and already alive. (Anaphora + refrain verified.)
- Logos: the extended metaphor of an unpaid debt — America wrote a "promissory note," handed Black citizens a "bad check" marked "insufficient funds," yet the "bank of justice" is not "bankrupt." Effect: reframes a sweeping moral plea as a fair, almost legal claim — a bill simply overdue — harder for a skeptical audience to dismiss as radical. (Metaphor + quoted phrases verified.)
- Kairos (bonus): delivered "five score years" after the Emancipation Proclamation, at the Lincoln Memorial, before the 1963 March on Washington. Effect: the occasion is itself an argument — a reckoning with an unkept century-old promise. (Occasion + opening phrase verified.)

Model — claim → evidence → analysis-of-effect paragraph (on pathos):

King's most powerful tool is pathos, and he delivers it through anaphora. By opening sentence after sentence with the same refrain — "I have a dream that one day…" — he does not add new evidence so much as build a rising wave of shared vision, each repetition reaching a little further (the nation's creed, a Georgia hillside, his own children). The effect on his 1963 audience is to make a future that does not yet exist feel concrete, near, and common to everyone listening; the demand stops sounding like a request and starts sounding like a promise being claimed. The repetition turns argument into something closer to a hymn — which is exactly why people remember the feeling of the speech, not a list of its points. (Refrain quoted exactly and kept short; the rest is analysis of effect.)

What the models show (the grading targets):
- Appeals Map: each row has a verified, exactly-quoted moment (not a paraphrase passed off as a quote, not a remembered line) and an effect, not a bare label. Ethos and logos are kept distinct.
- Paragraph: a real claim → evidence → effect move — short quote, long analysis — that analyzes strategy rather than summarizing or agreeing.
- Revision (Part 4): full credit requires a substantive fix — a label pushed into analysis of effect, or a summary turned back into strategy analysis — not just fixed typos.
- Coach (Part 5): acted on real feedback (usually: deepen the effect), in the student's own words.
- AI-critique (Part 6): full credit for a specific verdict on an AI quotation (real / mis-worded / invented), verified against the archived text, plus a label-not-analysis catch. The most valuable submissions catch a genuinely fabricated or misattributed quote and supply the correct words from the link.

Grading rubric — 50 points

Quality gate (self-checked) — citation-integrity + correct-conventions: PASS. The one real text in this studio (MLK's "I Have a Dream") is used factually and by link; both links (American Rhetoric + the NPR transcript) were verified to resolve. Every feature named in this studio and its key was verified word-for-word against the archived transcript; no quotation is fabricated, completed from memory, or misattributed, and all quoted phrases are short and exact. The studio's entire design centers the load-bearing habit — students copy quotations from the archive themselves, the coach is instructed not to supply or "correct" quotations, and the AI-critique step trains students to catch a chatbot inventing a quotation by verifying every quote against the real speech. The analysis-vs-summary-vs-agreement and ethos-vs-logos distinctions the rubric rewards match the Week-6 lecture and quiz. No student paragraph is asserted as "the" answer — the key grades analytical quality and quotation integrity, not specific words.