Week 8 · Midterm study guide

Midterm Exam — Study Guide

English Composition Free sample edition

Coverage — what the midterm covers

The midterm is cumulative over Weeks 1–7. It opens in the Week 8 module and closes at the due time your instructor sets. There is no time limit, and you get one attempt. The questions appear one at a time, and you cannot go back once you move on.

Format: 25 questions, and every question counts the same. Twenty-two ask you to pick exactly one option, and three ask you to judge whether a statement is true or false. Any passage a question needs is printed in the question itself, so you will not need to look anything up.

What is in scope, with the number of midterm questions on each course objective:

Midterm coverage by course objective: the weeks that teach it, its main skills, and its number of questions out of 25
Course objective	Weeks	Main skills	Questions
The rhetorical situation and the writing process	1, used again in 2	The five questions; exigence; the rhetorical triangle; the five process stages; recursive; revision vs. editing	4
Critical reading	2, used again in 3	Annotation; topic vs. claim vs. support; summary vs. response; opinion-leak; they say / I say	6
The paragraph, the thesis, and essay structure	3–4, used again in 7	Topic sentence and controlling idea; unity; PIE and MEAL; the two-part test; the four impostors; essay map; introduction and conclusion	6
The modes, rhetorical analysis, and argument	5–7	Narration vs. exposition; showing vs. telling; scene vs. summary; the four appeals and the devices; label vs. analysis; the Toulmin parts; counterargument and rebuttal; fallacies	9

The modes, rhetorical analysis, and argument carry the most questions, so give Weeks 5 to 7 the most review time. Critical reading and the paragraph-and-thesis objective tie for second. Week 8's three-sentence habit is not scored on its own, but it runs on the Week 2 and Week 6 distinctions the midterm does check, so practicing it is good review.

Topic-by-topic review

Each topic gives the key idea in plain words, the course's own definitions, the course example you already know, and the mistakes students make most often with a cure for each. Every topic ends with where to go deeper: that week's chapter, lecture page, slide deck, and Readings & Resources page.

Week 1 — The writing process and the rhetorical situation

Key idea: every message answers to a situation, and good writers loop back through the process instead of trying to get it right in one pass.
Definitions: rhetoric is the art of choosing what to say and how to say it for a particular reader and purpose. The rhetorical situation is taught as five questions: writer, audience, purpose, genre, and context. The exigence is the need or occasion that sets a piece of writing in motion; the term comes from Lloyd Bitzer's essay "The Rhetorical Situation" (1968). The rhetorical triangle is a classroom picture with three corners: the writer, the audience, and the subject.
The process: the writing process is taught as invention, drafting, revision, editing, and reflection. Recursive means the writer loops back to an earlier stage whenever the work needs it. Proofreading is the last surface pass inside editing. The process tradition is Murray's "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product" (1972), Elbow's freewriting in Writing Without Teachers (1973), and Flower and Hayes's "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing" (1981).
The load-bearing pair: revision re-sees a draft's ideas, focus, and structure. Editing improves its sentences and surface: word choice, sentence shape, grammar, punctuation, and spelling.
Course example: the food-drive message runs 27 words as a text to a friend, 61 as an email to the club leader, and 74 as a note to the events committee. The note uses 74 − 27 = 47 more words than the text, because the committee needs the request and the approval. The note's change log holds 4 revisions and 3 edits, so 4 + 3 = 7 changes. Its path made 7 stage visits across the 5 stages, so 7 − 5 = 2 visits were returns.
Invention tools: freewriting, listing, the reporter's questions, and talking it out.
Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) "revising means fixing grammar." Cure: ask, "Does this change what the draft says or how it is organized?" If not, it is editing. (2) "good writers get it right the first time." Cure: professionals revise constantly, and going back to invention is normal. (3) "more formal is always better." Cure: formality is matched to the reader, which is why the three food-drive messages differ.
Go deeper: the Week 1 chapter, lecture, slides, and the writing-process video on the Week 1 Readings & Resources page.

Week 2 — Critical reading: summary and response

Key idea: restate a text fairly first, then say what you think of it, and keep the two jobs apart.
Definitions: critical reading asks the five questions of someone else's text, then asks what the writer is claiming and how they are trying to convince you. Annotation marks a text as you read: underline the claim, bracket the support, mark the turns, and write questions in the margins. A turn is a place where a text changes direction, often at "yet", "but", or "however".
Three things to keep apart: the topic is what a text is about. The claim is the main point the writer asserts about that topic. The support is the reasons, evidence, examples, and explanations offered to make the claim believable.
Summary vs. response: a summary is a short restatement of what a text says: neutral, covering the whole text including the parts a hasty reader drops, and in your own words and sentences. An opinion-leak is a judging word, such as "rightly", that turns a report into a verdict. A response is your reasoned evaluation: you agree, disagree, or complicate, with reasons that point to the text. A reaction only says how the text made you feel.
They say / I say: state the other view fairly first, then answer it. The name of the move comes from Graff and Birkenstein (2006), They Say / I Say.
Course example: in Eisenhower's farewell address (1961), the topic is the military establishment. The claim is "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." A fair summary keeps the concession that comes first: "We recognize the imperative need for this development."
Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) summary and response treated as one job. Cure: what it says, then what I think of it, in separate paragraphs. (2) "a good summary uses the author's best sentences." Cure: lifting a writer's sentences is quoting, and without quotation marks it is plagiarism. (3) the topic mistaken for the claim. Cure: ask, "What does the writer say about this?" (4) arguing before restating, which builds a straw man.
Go deeper: the Week 2 chapter, lecture, slides, and the annotation video on the Week 2 Readings & Resources page.

Week 3 — The paragraph

Key idea: a paragraph makes one point fully. State the point, hold every sentence to it, and explain the evidence.
Definitions: the paragraph is the basic unit of composition. The topic sentence states the paragraph's controlling idea, the claim the paragraph sets out to prove. Unity means every sentence serves the controlling idea; a breaker is a sentence that does not. Coherence means the sentences lead into one another through a logical order, transitions that name real relationships, and old-to-new flow.
Development: a paragraph is developed when a skeptical reader can see both what supports the point and why that support proves it. PIE names the jobs: Point, Illustration, Explanation, and a closing Link. MEAL names the same four jobs: Main idea, Evidence, Analysis, and Link.
The check: the reverse-outline check notes, beside each sentence, what it says and what job it does, then reads only the notes.
Course example: the running draft's weak paragraph opens "Phones are a problem in lectures." That complaint names a subject, so it cannot work as a controlling idea, and "My roommate's lecture hall has bad Wi-Fi anyway." is the breaker. The revised paragraph opens "The strongest reason for a phone-free default is that the benefit is not spread evenly." A reader can answer that sentence with "prove it".
Two comma moves: a comma after an introductory element ("After the class finished its peer review, the draft doubled in length."). And a comma before a coordinating conjunction that joins two independent clauses ("The claim is clear, but the evidence is thin.").
Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) "a paragraph is five sentences." Cure: it runs as long as its one idea needs. (2) "enough facts make a paragraph developed." Cure: add the explanation sentence that says what the evidence proves. (3) unity read as "roughly the same subject." Cure: run the find-the-breaker test against the controlling idea itself.
Go deeper: the Week 3 chapter, lecture, slides, and the PIE video on the Week 3 Readings & Resources page.

Week 4 — Thesis and essay structure

Key idea: the thesis does for a whole essay what a topic sentence does for one paragraph: one claim, and every paragraph works for it.
Definitions: the thesis states an essay's main claim, and the working thesis is that claim in its best current form while you draft. The two-part test asks whether it is arguable (a reasonable person could disagree) and specific (it names what is claimed and often why).
The four impostors: a topic, a statement of fact, a question, and an announcement ("In this essay I will discuss…"). A fifth near-miss is arguable but vague ("…has pros and cons"); it passes the first half of the test and fails the second.
Structure: narrowing shrinks a broad subject to a question and then answers it as a claim. The essay map lists the body's points in a deliberate order, one per paragraph, including where the counterargument goes. The introduction gives a hook, context, and the thesis. The conclusion synthesizes and answers "so what?" instead of repeating the thesis. The reverse outline notes what each paragraph says and does.
Course example: the running draft narrows "phones" to a campus phone policy for lecture classes, which is still a topic. Its working thesis says lecture sections should be phone-free by default, with a stated exception for documented accommodations and emergencies. It gives the reason too: the benefit falls hardest on the students who struggle most, and the cost to everyone else is small. Its essay map has 3 body points, and point 3 holds the counterargument.
Placement: in a short academic essay the thesis usually closes the introduction. That is a convention, not a rule.
Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) a topic handed in as a thesis. Cure: ask, "What would someone argue against?" (2) the thesis written as a question. Cure: a thesis answers. (3) the conclusion as a restatement. Cure: say what the points add up to and why it matters.
Go deeper: the Week 4 chapter, lecture, slides, and the thesis video on the Week 4 Readings & Resources page.

Week 5 — Narration and exposition

Key idea: a story needs a point, and a reader believes a moment they can see more than a feeling they are told about.
Definitions: a rhetorical mode is a way of developing a piece of writing. Narration tells a true story to make a point. Exposition explains or informs without arguing a side; argument is Week 7's work. Significance is a narrative's "so what?"; it does the work a thesis does, and it may be stated or implied by a final image.
Showing vs. telling: telling names a feeling or a judgment ("I was miserable"). Showing gives the concrete sensory detail that lets the reader reach the feeling. The cure: showing is specific sensory evidence, not more adjectives. Purple prose piles on adjectives and grand comparisons and buries the moment.
Words and pacing: a concrete word names something a reader can see, hear, touch, taste, or smell; an abstract word names an idea, feeling, or judgment. A scene slows down for the moment that carries the point; a narrative summary moves quickly over time that does not.
Order: a story usually runs in chronological order with time transitions ("at last", "the next weekend"). An explanation of a task runs in process order with sequence transitions ("first", "next", "finally").
Course example: the camping-trip set. "Our first camping trip was a disaster." tells. "The tent poles kept slipping through my wet fingers, and the instruction sheet in my pocket had turned to gray pulp." shows. The expository version has 5 steps, opened by "First", "Next", "Then", "After that", and "Finally".
Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) "a narrative is what happened; it needs no point." Cure: name the significance, stated or implied. (2) "showing means more adjectives." Cure: replace each adjective with a detail the reader can picture or hear. (3) exposition treated as opinion. Cure: if the passage urges a change or a course of action, it has become argument.
Go deeper: the Week 5 chapter, lecture, slides, and the show-don't-tell videos on the Week 5 Readings & Resources page.

Week 6 — Rhetorical analysis

Key idea: rhetorical analysis explains how a text persuades and to what effect. It is never a verdict on whether you agree.
The three jobs: a summary says what the text says. Agreement says whether you think it is right. Analysis says how it persuades, and to what effect. Keep each in its own sentences.
The four appeals, as a model: ethos is the appeal to the speaker's credibility and character. Pathos is the appeal to the audience's emotions. Logos is the appeal to reasoning and evidence. Kairos is the appeal to the opportune moment: the occasion, place, and timing that make the words fit. The first three are the three artistic proofs Aristotle names in the Rhetoric. One move can serve two appeals.
Two pairs to keep apart: ethos vs. logos is who is speaking vs. the reasoning itself; the "from anyone?" test asks whether the sentence would still convince you from a stranger. Kairos vs. pathos is timing vs. feeling.
Devices: anaphora repeats the same words at the start of clauses or sentences in a row. Antithesis is two opposed ideas set side by side in balanced form. A metaphor describes one thing as if it were another. An allusion briefly refers to a text or event the audience already knows. Parallelism gives related ideas the same grammatical shape.
The engine: every analytical paragraph runs claim → evidence → effect. A label ("the author uses pathos") names an appeal without the how or the effect; it is the start of analysis, not analysis itself.
Course example: King's 1963 speech "I Have a Dream", given on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. "Now is the time" opens 4 consecutive sentences, which is anaphora. The pairing of "content of their character" with "the color of their skin" is antithesis.
Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) "rhetorical analysis means saying whether I agree." Cure: move your agreement to a separate sentence. (2) "'the author uses pathos' is analysis." Cure: add the evidence and the effect on that audience. (3) "a longer quotation makes a stronger analysis." Cure: quote a few exact words and spend your sentences on what they do.
Go deeper: the Week 6 chapter, lecture, slides, and the kairos video on the Week 6 Readings & Resources page.

Week 7 — Argument: claims, evidence, and warrants

Key idea: an argument is a claim backed by reasons and evidence and made to a reader who could disagree. Evidence alone proves nothing until a warrant says what it is evidence for.
The Toulmin model, as a model: Toulmin (1958), The Uses of Argument, names 6 parts: claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. This course keys 4 of them: claim, grounds, warrant, and rebuttal. Anticipating a counterargument is a related move, not one of Toulmin's parts.
Definitions: grounds are the evidence and reasons an argument points to (Toulmin's own word was data). The warrant is the usually unstated assumption that links the grounds to the claim. Backing supports the warrant. A qualifier, such as "probably" or "by default", sets how far the claim reaches. A matter of taste cannot be a claim, because no one can be shown to be wrong about it.
The other side: a counterargument is the strongest objection a fair reader would raise. Steel-manning states it at its strongest; a straw man is a weakened copy built to be knocked down. A concession grants the part that is right, and the rebuttal answers the rest. Rogerian argument starts from common ground; it is named for Carl Rogers and was adapted for writing by Young, Becker, and Pike in Rhetoric: Discovery and Change (1970).
Fallacies: a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning that makes an argument look stronger than it is. The course's common core is ad hominem, straw man, slippery slope, false dilemma, hasty generalization, misused appeal to authority, bandwagon, circular reasoning, and post hoc. Guides differ on how many fallacies there are. A real cause-and-effect chain is not a slippery slope.
Course example: in the running draft, the warrant is "a college should adopt a low-cost practice whose benefit lands on the students who most need it." The qualifiers are "by default" and "lecture sections". The rebuttal is an opt-in accommodation and a stated exception, not a blanket ban.
Predictable mistakes → cures: (1) the warrant confused with the evidence. Cure: the grounds are what you point to; the warrant is why that pointing counts. (2) "mentioning the other side weakens my argument." Cure: answering the strongest objection builds ethos. (3) a real causal chain called a slippery slope. Cure: ask whether each link is shown or only feared.
Go deeper: the Week 7 chapter, lecture, slides, and the counterargument video on the Week 7 Readings & Resources page.

Week 8's new habit (not scored on its own)

The three-sentence habit writes what a text says, how it persuades, and whether you agree in three separate sentences, in that order: summary, then analysis, then agreement. It guards against the agreement collapse, where "I agree with this" stands in for both the summary and the analysis. The midterm checks the distinctions underneath it, especially summary vs. response (Week 2) and label vs. analysis (Week 6).

Representative practice

These are fresh variants, not the midterm's questions. Every passage is illustrative, written for this guide, and attributed to no one, except the King fragments, which are copied exactly from the archived transcript. Work each worked example yourself first, then compare your steps.

Worked example — one change, three readers (Week 1)

A community choir's concert has moved from its usual hall to a larger one across town. The volunteer coordinator writes three messages: a text to a fellow singer, an email to the choir's director, and a notice to the people who bought tickets.

The exigence: the change of hall. It is the need that makes all three messages necessary.
The five questions for the notice: the writer is the choir's volunteer coordinator. The audience is ticket holders who do not know the coordinator and need the new address. The purpose is to get them to the right hall. The genre is a short public notice, and the context is a late change to a public event.
Why the notice runs longest: the singer needs one line, but the ticket holders need the new address, whether their tickets still work, and where to park. Each reader's needs set the length.
The notice's change log, sorted: the coordinator made 5 changes. Revision (2): moved the new address from the last sentence to the first, and added a sentence saying that the old tickets still work. Editing (3): replaced "relocated" with "moved", added a comma after "Because the old hall is under repair", and fixed a misspelling of "auditorium". Check: 2 + 3 = 5.
The path through the process: invention, drafting, revision, drafting, editing, reflection. That is 6 stage visits across the 5 stages, so 6 − 5 = 1 visit was a return. The coordinator went back to drafting after revising, which is what recursive means.

Why it matters: the two revisions change what the notice says and how it is ordered; the three edits only touch sentences. That one test sorts every change on a log.

Worked example — map it, summarize it, respond to it (Week 2)

An illustrative neighborhood newsletter column reads: "Lap swimmers who work days have nowhere to go: by the time they get off work, the lanes are full of lessons and open swim. I grant that an earlier opening means paying a lifeguard for one more hour each morning. Still, the community pool should open at six on weekdays, because an early hour would serve the swimmers the current schedule shuts out. Several of them already drive to the next town to swim before work."

Topic: the community pool's weekday hours.
Claim (underline it): the community pool should open at six on weekdays.
Support (bracket it): after-work lanes are full, and some swimmers already drive to another town to swim early.
Concession: the column grants that an earlier opening costs a lifeguard's extra hour. A fair summary keeps it.
Turn (arrow in the margin): "Still". That is where the column pivots from the cost to the case.
Opinion-leak repair: "The column sensibly argues that the pool should open earlier" leaks a verdict in "sensibly". The repair reads "The column argues that the pool should open at six on weekdays."
Summary (illustrative): "The column argues that the community pool should open at six on weekdays so that lap swimmers who work days can swim before work. It grants that the change means paying a lifeguard for an extra hour, but it says the early hour would serve swimmers whom the current schedule shuts out."
Response (illustrative): "The column's case is easier to weigh on cost than on benefit. It names the lifeguard's extra hour exactly, but 'several' swimmers tells the board that the demand exists without saying how large it is."
A reaction, for contrast: "What a great idea!" It rates the column and gives no reason about the text.

Why it matters: the summary comes first, carries no verdict, and keeps the concession; the response comes second and gives a reason that points to the column itself.

Worked example — build and check one paragraph (Week 3)

An illustrative cover-letter paragraph for a help-desk job reads: "Two summers behind the counter of a bike-repair shop taught me to explain a problem so that a worried customer could follow it. When a rider brought in a wheel that wobbled, I showed them the bent spoke and wrote the repair and its cost on the ticket before I touched a tool. The shop also sold coffee on weekends. Customers who could see the cause of a repair trusted the price, and that trust is what a help desk needs from every caller. That habit of showing before fixing is what I would bring to your support team."

Topic sentence vs. title: "My bike-shop job." would only name a subject. The first sentence makes a claim about the writer, one a reader could answer with "prove it".
Find the breaker: "The shop also sold coffee on weekends." does not help prove that the writer can explain a problem, so it goes.
PIE map: Point = the first sentence. Illustration = the wobbling-wheel sentence. Explanation = "Customers who could see the cause…", which says what the illustration proves. Link = the last sentence, which ties the point to the job.
MEAL map: the same four jobs under the names Main idea, Evidence, Analysis, and Link.
Old-to-new flow: "Customers who could see the cause" opens by pointing back to the bent spoke and ends on the new idea of trust.
Comma move: "The wobble looked small but the spoke was cracked." → "The wobble looked small, but the spoke was cracked." The comma comes before "but" because it joins two independent clauses.

Why it matters: cutting the breaker and keeping the explanation sentence is what turns a list of job duties into a claim a hiring manager can believe.

Worked example — from topic to thesis (Week 4)

The topic area is AI in the writing classroom. Every sentence below is illustrative, written for this guide, and takes a position the writer is practicing, not one the course prescribes.

Broad topic: chatbots. Too big, and it takes no side.
The impostors: a topic, "Chatbots in writing classes."; a fact, "This course's syllabus has a section on chatbot use."; a question, "Should writing courses allow chatbot feedback?"; an announcement, "In this essay I will discuss chatbots in writing classes."
Arguable but vague: "Chatbot feedback on drafts can help in some ways and hurt in others." It passes "arguable" only in a weak way and fails "specific": it names no position and no reason, so it gives the essay nothing to prove.
Working thesis: "A first-year writing course should allow chatbot feedback on drafts but require students to submit the conversation with the paper, because the record shows which changes came from the student."
Two-part test: arguable, because many instructors would ban chatbot feedback outright and others would allow it without any record. Specific, because it names who, what, the condition, and why.
Essay map: point 1, feedback while drafting shows a writer a reader's questions early. Point 2, the submitted conversation shows which changes are the student's. Point 3 takes up the strongest objections: a chatbot can over-edit a voice into boilerplate or invent a source. It answers them with the course's rule that a writer checks every quotation and source by hand. Point 3 holds the counterargument.
Conclusion plan: say what the three points add up to, a way to use the tool while keeping the writing the student's own, then answer "so what?" for the instructor who has to set the policy.

Why it matters: each impostor fails the test in its own way, and the map gives every body paragraph one job before a word of the essay is drafted.

Worked example — tell it, show it, explain it (Week 5)

One illustrative experience, a first open-mic night, written three ways and then as an explanation.

Told: "My first open-mic night was a nightmare. I was terrified the whole time." "Nightmare" and "terrified" are abstract; the reader is told how to feel.
Purple: "The vast, cruel, endless stage stretched before me like a desert of doom, and my courage crumbled into dust." More adjectives and a grand comparison, and still no moment a reader can picture.
Shown: "The microphone stand was set for someone a foot taller, and when I cranked it down it squealed through the speakers. My index card had gone soft in my palm. Near the back, a blender started up at the coffee bar." Sound (the squeal, the blender) and touch (the soft card), built from concrete words.
Narrative summary vs. scene: "I sat through an hour of other performers, sipping a lemonade that went warm." covers an hour in one sentence. The microphone moment gets three sentences, because it carries the point.
Significance, stated: "That night taught me that the first minute on a stage is the hardest one, and then it ends." Implied: "At the next open mic, I wrote my name on the sign-up sheet before I sat down."
Exposition, in process order: "First, choose a piece you can read in three minutes. Next, read it aloud twice with a timer. Then pencil a slash where you will pause for breath. After that, arrive early and sign up. Finally, set the microphone to your height before you speak." Five steps, five sequence transitions, and no side argued.

Why it matters: the shown version trades named feelings for sensory evidence, and the scene spends its detail where the point lives.

Worked example — sort the appeals, then turn a label into analysis (Week 6)

A neighborhood fire-safety drive sends out four illustrative pieces:

A flyer that opens "From a firefighter with 15 years on the job" leans on ethos: the trust comes from who is speaking.
A mailer that lays out step by step why a monthly test catches a dead alarm before a fire does leans on logos: the reasoning would convince you from anyone.
A poster of a singed stuffed rabbit on a smoky windowsill leans on pathos: it works by stirring fear for a child.
A reminder to test alarms, texted the evening the clocks change, leans on kairos: it works because of when it arrives.

The "from anyone?" test splits the first two. The mailer's steps still convince if a stranger hands it to you; the flyer's line does not.

Now one move in King's speech, from label to analysis. The fragments are copied exactly from the archived transcript.

Label (illustrative): "The speech has a money metaphor in it." It names a device and stops.
Summary (illustrative): "King tells the crowd that the nation owes a debt it has not paid." It reports what the speech says.
Analysis (illustrative): claim, "King's debt metaphor persuades by turning a moral demand into a bill that is overdue." Evidence: the nation signed a "promissory note" and handed back a "bad check" that came back marked "insufficient funds". Effect: "Every listener knows what a bounced check means: someone is owed, and 'later' does not settle it. The frame works as logos, a matter of what is owed, and the sting of a bounced check adds pathos."

Why it matters: the label names the move, the summary reports the speech, and only the analysis explains what the words do to the audience of that day.

Worked example — map one argument (Week 7)

The topic area is a four-day class schedule. The thesis below is illustrative and argues a position for practice.

"The college should move its evening sections to a four-day schedule, at least for courses that meet in long blocks, because day-shift workers in those sections would make one fewer trip to campus each week."

Claim: the evening sections should move to a four-day schedule.
Grounds: day-shift workers in those sections would make one fewer trip to campus each week. The writer has observed that many classmates in an evening section drive straight from work.
Warrant, stated: "a class schedule should fit the working lives of the students it is built for." That is why one fewer trip counts as a reason to change the schedule.
Backing: evening sections exist to serve students who work days.
Qualifier: "at least for courses that meet in long blocks".
Straw man (the move to avoid): "People who oppose the change only want to keep the schedule they are used to."
Counterargument, steel-manned: a four-day schedule packs longer blocks into each class night, which are harder to sit through, and it leaves less time between meetings to read and draft.
Concession and rebuttal: "The objection is right that a longer block is harder to sit through." Then answer it: build a short break into each long block, and keep the reading deadlines on the same pace.
Evidence alone: "many classmates drive straight from work" says nothing about schedules until the warrant says why it matters.

Fallacy sort, on fresh topics:

"Every gym in town has added a 24-hour membership, so ours should too." Bandwagon: popularity offered as proof.
"The farmers' market was quiet the two times I went, so no one in town shops there." Hasty generalization: two visits cannot speak for a whole town.
"Ignore the plan for a bike lane; the person who wrote it does not even own a car." Ad hominem: it attacks the writer, not the plan.
"The museum should stay open late because a later closing is what the museum should have." Circular reasoning: the reason only restates the claim.
"If the pool opens at six, the lifeguard on that shift will need to arrive before six." That is one real consequence, not a slippery slope.

Why it matters: the warrant is the line a skeptical reader pushes on, and a fair rebuttal gives that reader a reason to trust the writer.

Self-check questions

Try each one, then read the check and the one-line why.

Halfway through drafting a notice for an apartment complex, a writer stops to look up the building's rules on parking. Which stage has the writer gone back to? Check: invention. Why: the writer is finding material again, and that loop back is what makes the process recursive.
A hiking club's trail is closed for repairs, so the trip leader writes to every member. What is the exigence? Check: the trail closure. Why: it is the occasion that sets the message in motion.
A summary sentence reads, "The museum's annual report proudly brags about its attendance." Which words are the opinion-leak? Check: "proudly brags". Why: they judge the report instead of reporting what it says.
A paragraph argues that a community garden needs a tool shed. One sentence says the garden's tomatoes won a ribbon last year. What is that sentence? Check: the breaker. Why: it is about the same garden but does not help prove the controlling idea about a tool shed.
"This essay will explore remote work." Which impostor is it? Check: an announcement. Why: it names a subject and promises a discussion without taking a side.
A passage explains how to plant a seedling, step by step, and never asks the reader to agree with anything. Which mode is it? Check: exposition, in process order. Why: it explains a task and argues no side.
An umbrella seller sets up outside a stadium the moment the rain starts. Kairos or pathos? Check: kairos. Why: the pitch works because of its timing, not because it stirs a feeling.
"Three neighbors have been clipped by car doors on a narrow street, so the street needs a bike lane." What warrant links the grounds to the claim? Check: "a street where cyclists keep getting hurt should be redesigned to protect them." Why: without it, three accidents are a fact, not a reason for a bike lane.
"A famous chef says the town's new recycling rules are a mistake, so the council should repeal them." Which fallacy? Check: misused appeal to authority. Why: the chef's expertise is food, not recycling, and no authority's word settles a question by itself.
Using the three-sentence habit on a podcast episode, which sentence comes last? Check: agreement. Why: you report what it says and explain how it persuades before you judge it.

Check yourself — choose one. Write three or four sentences, as if explaining to a friend who missed a week.

(a) Explain why "the author uses pathos" is a label and not an analysis, and what two things would turn it into one.
(b) Explain why a summary that drops a writer's concession is unfair, even if every sentence in it is accurate.

Either one rehearses an explain-why skill the midterm checks.

Watch before the exam

These seven videos come from the course's Readings & Resources pages for Weeks 1 to 8, and every one has captions. Use them to review and to connect weeks, not to learn anything new.

The Writing Process (Rhetoric & Composition) — Study Hall reviews the Week 1 objective: the process as stages a writer loops back through. It connects to Week 3's reverse-outline check and Week 4's working thesis, which are revision tools.
Two-Minute Lecture: Summary vs. Analysis — Colburn Classroom reviews the Week 2 objective on keeping a summary neutral. It connects Week 2's summary to Week 6's analysis, the pair the three-sentence habit keeps apart.
PIE Paragraph Structure — Amery Bodelson reviews the Week 3 paragraph moves, especially the explanation writers skip. It connects to Week 6, where every analytical paragraph needs the same explanation of effect.
How To Write An Essay: Thesis Statements — Ariel Bissett reviews the Week 4 thesis; run the two-part test on each example. It connects to Week 7, where the thesis becomes the claim of an argument.
Improve your Writing: Show, Not Tell — engVid reviews the Week 5 cure for telling, one sentence at a time. It connects to Week 6, where a writer's concrete detail is often the evidence an analysis quotes.
What Is Kairos? — Read, Write, and Cite reviews the Week 6 appeal students most often confuse with pathos. It connects to Week 7, where a proposal lands best when its moment has come.
The Warrant in the Toulmin Argument Model — Russ Markert reviews the Week 7 warrant, the part students find hardest. It connects back to Week 2's claim and support, now with the link between them spelled out.

Study plan

A short countdown. Count back from the day you plan to sit the midterm.

Two weeks out: as you finish Week 6, start a one-page list of the course's swapped pairs: revision vs. editing, summary vs. response, topic vs. thesis, showing vs. telling, ethos vs. logos, kairos vs. pathos. Add warrant vs. evidence when Week 7 arrives.
One week out: as you finish Week 7, reread the topic reviews above for Weeks 1 to 3, the weeks furthest back.
At the start of Week 8: take the practice exam once, cold and closed-note. Note which objectives cost you the most.
Three or four days before you sit it: reread the topic reviews for your two weakest objectives, and redo the matching worked examples from scratch without looking.
Two days before: run the paired exam-prep tutorial (the copy-and-paste chatbot tutor, or its no-AI route) for active recall. Tell it which areas the practice exam exposed.
The day before: retake the practice exam, explain every miss out loud, and work the self-check questions above.
Right before: skim the "predictable mistakes → cures" lines for all seven weeks. Then stop studying.

This guide is for review. The exam-prep tutorial and the practice exam are where you rehearse. Pulling ideas back out of memory, not rereading, is what makes them stick.

Exam format

Every one of the 25 questions counts the same, and the midterm checks your own understanding without AI. The questions come one at a time, and there is no going back, so settle each one before you move on.

Test-taking strategies for this material:

Name the swapped pair first. Most questions test one distinction, such as summary vs. response or warrant vs. evidence. Say the pair to yourself before you read the options.
Run the course's tests by name. "Does it change what the draft says?" (revision). "Could a reader say 'prove it'?" (topic sentence). "Could a reasonable person disagree?" (thesis). "From anyone?" (logos).
Read for the judging word. In any sentence offered as a summary, look for one word that rates the text.
Ask how, not whether. In a rhetorical-analysis question, the strongest sentence explains an effect; a sentence that names an appeal and stops is a label.
Find the link. In an argument question, the grounds are what the writer points to, and the warrant is the assumption that makes them count.
For a true-or-false statement, test every part of it. One wrong word, such as "always" or "must", can make the whole statement false.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com