Name:

Due Date:

Period:

/50 = ___%

The Crucible Acts III & IV (SOAPStone or Rhetorical Triangle)

ACT III & IV (Summative): Compose a SOAPStone with evidence on a major character from the end of the play. Characters to choose include: John Proctor; Elizabeth Proctor; Mary Warren; Reverend Hale; Deputy Governor Danforth.

Your Task:

Focus on one of the characters mentioned above and compose a multi-paragraph analysis that includes all elements of a SOAPStone and is supported by meaningful quotes as evidence.

OR

ACTS III & IV (Summative): Compose a Rhetorical Triangle (Ethos/Pathos/Logos) with evidence on one of the main characters from the end of the play. Characters to choose include: John Proctor; Elizabeth Proctor; Mary Warren; Reverend Hale; Deputy Governor Danforth.

Your Task:

Focus on one of the characters mentioned above and compose a multi-paragraph essay that analyze the character’s “rhetoric” using the rhetorical triangle of ethos/pathos/logos and is supported by meaningful quotes as evidence. Use your annotations and your Evidence Journal to assist you and provide meaningful evidence to support your claims.

Here is what I will be looking for the SOAPSTone:

Speaker: Tell me your knowledge about your chosen character through Acts 3 & 4 including background information, relationships with others, his/her inclination toward ethos, pathos, or logos, and his/her interpretations of the events taking place in Salem.

Occasion/Audience: Give some context about the circumstances of this character’s inclusion or involvement in the end of the play. Also, focus on the relationship he/she has with the people he/she is speaking to.

Purpose/Subject: What is the purpose of this characters inclusion at the end of the play? What characteristics or perspectives does he/she expose that contributes to the development or theme of the play? Does this character represent or help expose a certain point of view, topic or main idea that is important to the play?

Tone: What is the tone of this character?

Here is what I will be looking for in each paragraph for the rhetorical triangle:

Ethos/Speaker– tell as much information as you can about your chosen character. Use any and all information provided in the play, including the “notes” Miller provides. Use specific examples from the text. Cite using MLA format.

Pathos/Audience – the character’s relationship to his/her audience or peers. Analyze the character’s speech, behavior, and how other character’s act toward this character to glean this information. How does the character use emotional connections to communicate with those around him/her? Use specific examples from the text. Cite using MLA format.

Logos/Subject – Discuss the character’s subject at hand, and the use of logical reasoning and sound evidence to convince those around him/her, or to state his/her claims. Use specific examples from the text. Cite using MLA format.

Follow MLA format:

o Title should be the character’s name.

o Correct heading: upper left hand corner, your name, teacher name, class and date.

o Size 12 font

o Times New Roman

o Double Space

o After each quote, put author’s last name and page number in parentheses. Example:

Ø “Abigail: Oh, I marvel how such a strong man may let such a sickly wife be” ( Miller 22). Notice there is NO comma between author’s last name and page number. Also notice the period is AFTER the close parentheses.

Ideas and Analysis		Support, evidence, and attribution			Focus	Mechanics
A: analysis of clearly superior quality (45 – 50)	Responses to all areas of the analysis are developed impressively and with insight—you saw more in the text and analyzed your findings to an extent that surpassed most of your peers.		All ideas thoroughly supported with relevant, sufficient, and properly attributed evidence (adhering to MLA guidelines) and commentary that serves to clearly and concisely prove your points.	Analysis is focused incisively on the role of the author/speaker in the text; summary is provided only where needed to support your points, and not as a stand-in for analysis.			Document is impeccably edited, with few, if any, errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation
B: analysis of good, commendable quality (44 – 40)	Responses to almost all areas of the analysis are well-developed and accurate. Your analysis shows careful thought and analysis that is above the norm.		Most ideas are well supported with relevant, sufficient, and properly attributed evidence that serves to clearly prove the points you make, though there may be occasional lapses in the quality and relevance of the evidence and commentary.	Analysis is focused sufficiently on the role of the author/speaker in the text; summary provided only where needed to support points, not as stand-in for analysis; though you may provide some slightly extraneous information, the vast majority of writing proves your analysis.			Document is well edited, with few errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Errors that remain are minor and do not impede the clarity of the writing.
C: analysis of acceptable/ average quality (39 - 35)	Responses to some of the areas of the analysis are well-developed and accurate, though one or two of the areas may be less developed. Your analysis shows depth of thought that is representative of most of your peers.		Your ideas are adequately supported with some relevant, sufficient, and properly attributed evidence that sometimes proves the points you make, though there may be minor lapses in the quality and relevance of the evidence and commentary, and/or very few minor errors in MLA attribution.	Your analysis sometimes lapses into excessive summary in place of analysis, though most of your writing is used to prove your analysis and/or your paper loses focus once or in favor of irrelevant or extraneous information.			The document is adequately edited, with some errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. The errors usually do not impede the clarity of the writing.
D: analysis of marginal quality (34 – 30)	Responses to some of the areas of the analysis are well-developed and accurate, though some areas of the analysis are less than thorough in treatment, or one area may be incomplete.		Your ideas are insufficiently supported; there is some relevant, sufficient, and properly attributed evidence that sometimes proves the points you make,.	Substantial portions of the response provide summary without analysis, or summary with only cursory analysis and/or your analysis sometimes loses focus in favor or irrelevant or extraneous information.			Document is inadequately edited, with numerous errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation and/or major errors that detract from the clarity of writing.
F: analysis of poor quality (29 – 0)	responses to few or none of the areas of the analysis are well-developed, or represent guesswork with little effort made to support your claims.		Your ideas are infrequently substantiated with evidence that sometimes proves the points you make, though there may be minor lapses in the quality and relevance of the evidence and commentary.	Large segments of the writing are merely summary with little or no analysis and/or your writing frequently loses focus in favor of irrelevant or extraneous information.			Document is poorly edited, with frequent errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation and/or major errors, making writing difficult to understand.