UNIT: CATAPULT

ACT-Based English: Rhetorical Analysis of a Catapult Engineering Review

OBJECTIVE:

Students evaluate persuasive writing techniques in an article.

Materials Needed:

Speaker review excerpt

Highlighters

Student Directions:

Goal:

You will read and analyze an engineering product review of a catapult to understand how writers use tone, clarity, and rhetorical strategies to persuade or influence the reader’s opinion. This task mirrors the type of rhetorical analysis you’ll encounter on the ACT English and Reading sections.

Step 1: Read the Review Excerpt

Read the entire product review from beginning to end.

Do not stop to annotate yet—just try to understand the main idea, tone, and overall opinion of the writer.

Step 2: Annotate with Highlighters

Use your highlighters to identify the following:

Tone & Word Choice (e.g., enthusiastic, critical, sarcastic)

Persuasive Techniques (e.g., emotional appeal, expert opinion, statistics, comparisons)

Sentence Structure (e.g., short punchy sentences for emphasis, long technical explanations)

Example:
Highlight a phrase like “this innovative design revolutionizes classroom physics experiments” and label it as positive tone and emotional appeal.

Step 3: Identify and Label Strategies

On your worksheet or notebook, list examples of:

Ethos – Does the author build credibility or reference experts?

Pathos – Are there emotional appeals to safety, excitement, or frustration?

Logos – Are logical arguments or technical specifications used?

Step 4: Write a Short Analysis Paragraph

In 1–2 paragraphs, respond to the following:

What is the overall tone of the review, and how does it affect the reader’s opinion?

Which rhetorical strategies are most effective, and why?

Would you trust this review when deciding whether to use or buy this catapult? Why or why not?

Step 5: Class or Small Group Discussion

Discuss with your classmates:

How do authors influence how we think about technology or products?

Can you spot bias, exaggeration, or strong persuasion techniques?

How does this connect to writing strong arguments in your own work?