My reaction to Zachary Talbot’s “A Rhetorical Analysis of Authors on the CIA Torture Inquiry” is one of mixed emotions.
His organization is outstanding. Using a clear, concise statement, Talbot first introduces the issue. Then, he briefly introduces his topic and outlines his main points. This clarity in his introduction guides the reader through his argument so the reader knows what to expect. Then he divides his topics under separate tittles, “Heroes and Villains,” “Exigence,” “Applied Symbolism,” and “Conclusion” to further make his argument an easier and more enjoyable read.
His refreshing get-to-the-point style, however, does not make his argument weaker–rather, it reduces redundancy. Additionally, because he sprinkles evidence throughout his essay and uses precise diction in his claims and explanations, his argument is solid and well rounded. It is clear he understands his sources.
Content, however, is where Talbot begins to lose my support.
Talbot is successful in some respects. He reveals his sources’ tones and arguments in the third paragraph well. His claims about who the rhetors support and who/what the rhetors refute in under the “Heroes and Villains?” section also strengthens the paper because he gives a detailed explanation why understanding who the source supports or dislikes is relevant and beneficial. Lastly, Talbot explains exceedingly well his sources’ exigence and rhetorical devises they use to reach their audiences (applied symbolism).
He raises a series of questions in his conclusion, however, that should have been answered in his argument: “Is our friend Barnett defending something that is obviously ethically wrong? Why is he so calm and friendly as he writes as opposed to Eddlem who sounds so desperate to force his ideas on his audience?…how will the different author’s views of the constraints on post-9/11 situational circumstances come into play?” He is asking the right questions and can obviously read his sources rhetorically, but Talbot’s failure to answer weakens his arguments originality and power. By answering these questions, Talbot would apply larger meaning to the works. His argument might even have some broad-scope significance and answer the “so what?” question. Presently, however he has only the basis for a real argument and only really successfully frames the sources’ and explains one rhetorical devise. He says nothing about how the contrast in arguments in relation to viewpoints carries significance.
In short, his argument feels incomplete.
Katie Hoer's Blog 103 
In first look at Talbot’s piece, the feelings of extreme organization rose over me. His outlining tools and techniques prove to be very successful. Your claim on his direct approach, and how it reduces redundancy also shows further evidence on the success of Talbot’s set up. He almost guides readers through thorough explanations. I can’t say I the same incomplete feeling come his conclusion. I absolutely agree, he leaves many questions to be answered but through my interpretation of his article, I feel that maybe some of these questions shouldn’t be answered but left for personal thought and analysis. Maybe because Talbot raised so many valid points, he leaves it to the readers to finish his piece with their own thoughts. Making the readers actively contribute to the article. I could be being way to philosophical and be asking to much from the readers, but the way his conclusion was written that’s was I depicted.