Skip to content

Rhetorical Analysis

Heidi Haxhiu

Professor von Uhl 

The Creation of a Comprehensible Writing Piece

Abstract: A rhetorical analysis essay is difficult to prescribe a genre however, it can be considered informative and educational. With this in mind, my purpose was to reach my audience by explaining the factors that contribute to a paper that is easy to understand yet still puts the point across to their readers. 

The effectiveness of a lab report relies on its ability to provide content that is comprehensible for readers. The potential for one to understand a paper lies in the hands of the authors and their ability to use rhetorical devices to accelerate their writing. “Implantation Trends and Patient Profiles for Pacemakers and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in the United States 1993-2006” achieved a well-thought-out and written lab report by its utilization of commas, semi-colons, and transition words which allowed for a smooth shift between ideas; the layout of the paper aided in the understanding of the paper, and the information in each paragraph made it easy to comprehend; all characteristics that “Novel Radionics Features for Automated Detection of Cardiac Abnormality in Patients with Pacemakers” and  “Implantable Defibrillator System Shock Function, Morality, and Cause of Death After Magnetic Resonance Imagining” did not obtain. 

Grammar plays a significant part in understanding writing pieces since it allows for a cohesive release of information throughout the writing. Additionally, grammar simplifies the topic of discussion by easing into certain points. For example, Kurtz et al. utilized commas more often than other grammar techniques; however, they do incorporate other strategies as well. One example is, “A regression model was used to estimate the surgery rate, and normalized by the size of the population, and evaluation of the calendar year trend” (2010, p.2). The incorporation of a comma in this instance allowed for a smooth explanation of the model being used in this research and the purpose, which was to predict surgery rates; this contributed significantly to the readers ability to understand the technique being used. In Novel Radionics Features for Automated Detection, Pai et al. lacked the use of commas to merge ideas and further analyze sentences, yet their use of colons was used in cases where data was listed “ultrasound image analyses as follows:” (2022, p.4). The effectiveness of this grammar tool presented a direct outline of what was to come; instead of using a bulleted list, the colon plays the same role. Ra et al. also effectively made use of commas, yet it did not seem to play a part in the understanding of the information presented. For instance, Kurtz et al. used commas to simplify the process taking place; Ra et al. used it to organize their thoughts. Hence, without the correct utilization of many different methods, it would make the linguistic analysis of a writing piece harder to comprehend for someone who is not well educated on specific topics.

Following grammar, transition words play a big part in the flow of an article when clarifying the beginning of a new thought or addition to previous one. Transitions can bring together a series of ideas and allow for the reader to make sense of the order of information. Kurtz et al. and Ra et al. used words such as “although”, “specifically”, “for example”, etc., when starting a new paragraph or sentence. Strong and effective use of transition words in “Implantable Defibrillator System” was in the following sentence, “Moreover, MRI-conditional ICDs have regulatory agency labeling indicating… (2023, p.1)” the placement of the word “moreover” referenced the addition to a previous thought. This plays a significant role since it connects more than one separate thought. On the other hand, Pai et al. placed “usually” to describe or indicate repetition; however, this could have been more throughout if the authors had placed “in most cases” which would have the same effect although, it would amplify the fact that this is common. The diction used when creating a transition works hand in hand with its outreach; if the reader is not told blatantly that something occurs often, the likelihood of them missing this key piece of information is increased.  

The layout of each research paper is very similar; although, “Implantation Trends and Patient Profiles” usage of graphics is the strongest. Tables, graphs, and other graphics are important in the understanding of a paper since they support the ideas that are being presented; it allows for a visual description. All the research papers include figures to provide support for the ideas that are carried through. One example of a poorly organized paper is in “Implantable Defibrillator System”; the authors mentioned table four on page three, however, table four was not available until page seven. Whereas, in “Implantation Trends and Patient Profiles” the authors did not mention the figures throughout their writing, yet they did explain the figures as they came up in the results section of the paper. This was similar in “Novel Radionics Features for Automated Detection” where the authors did not mention the tables throughout their writing until it was time to explain them; if Pai et al. did mention the graphics before they came up, it was most likely on the same page or the following one. The placement of these graphics is important because if a reader does not comprehend what they are looking at, the reader will most likely find the information in the table insignificant resulting in loss of key facts. 

In addition to the organization of the figures, the word choice and amount of technical jargon played a significant part in the writing’s comprehension. Jargon is a term used to describe terminology that relates to a certain topic or field. In this case, “Implantation Trends and Patient Profiles” contained the least number of technical terms compared to the other two research papers. Kurtz et al. writes: 

Early clinical success combined with advances in technology in implantable cardiac and rhythm management devices (pacemakers [PM] and implantable cardioverter defibrillators ([ICDs]) have resulted in broadening of indications resulting in a dramatic increase in access and utilization. (2010, p.1)

This is an accurate example of a piece of writing that does not contain jargon, the authors use terms that are specific to this topic, yet they clarify by using terms that are likely to be understood by the audience. However, “Implantable Defibrillator System” is a prime example of the utilization of technical language. Ra et al. states, “Successful post-MRI defibrillation safety margin testing and defibrillation threshold testing (17-19), as well as appropriate ICD terminations of spontaneous arrhythmias after MRI (20,21), have been reported in a few patients (2023, p. 1).” This is an instance where the authors assumed that the terms they were using did not require an explanation or simplification. Yet, some of the terms used in this sentence are connected to the topic (such as “arrhythmias”) and should be further explained mainly because it means abnormality in the pattern of a heartbeat which is fixed with the usage of pacemakers (the topic of the paper). Thus, the use of technical terms or jargon can hinder the readers’ comprehension of the research paper and its purpose. 

         In conclusion, each lab report had its strengths and weaknesses when it came to connecting with its readers. With the use of many different techniques, only one stood out as easy to comprehend and impactful. The general layout of Kurtz et al. stood out the most alongside the simplicity of the writing. Pai et al. were close to effectiveness with Kurtz et al. though, it lacked successful grammar use which was noticeable. Lastly, Ra et al. contained very valuable information however, the way in which the information was presented made it extremely difficult for someone who is not specialized in the field to understand. Nevertheless, combined, each research paper was able to explain the topic in-depth with key information and provided a strong argument for those who are skilled in the field of pacemakers.

 Works Cited 

  1. KURTZ, S. M., OCHOA, J. A., LAU, E., SHKOLNIKOV, Y., PAVRI, B. B., FRISCH, D., & GREENSPON, A. J. (2010). Implantation trends and patient profiles for pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators in the United States: 1993-2006. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology, 33(6), 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02670.x 
  2. Umesh Pai, M., Ardakani, A. A., Kamath, A., Raghavendra, U., Gudigar, A., Venkatesh, N., Samanth, J., Devasia, T., Prabhu, M. A., Sampathila, N., & Bairy, G. M. (2022b). Novel radiomics features for automated detection of cardiac abnormality in patients with pacemaker. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2022, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1279749 
  3. Ra, J., Oberdier, M. T., Suzuki, M., Vaidya, D., Liu, Y., Hansford, R., McVeigh, D., Weltin, V., Tao, S., Thiemann, D. R., Nazarian, S., & Halperin, H. R. (2023). Implantable defibrillator system shock function, mortality, and cause of death after Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Annals of Internal Medicine, 176(3), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.7326/m22-2653