I thought this reading was helpful, but was also a bit confusing. The first part that instructed us to what to look for and use when writing a rhetorical paper was usful. It introduced me to the idea that a paper can be persuasive without it being obvious about it. I found this to be a especially good thing to know. This will hopefully make be a more critical reader in the future. However, I found the paper we were suppose to read and analyze very confusing. Firstly, the whole paper seemed to be a bit disorganized to me. The author of the paper spent 7 pages telling us about his story, and only wrote one page to explain his title. After discussing his paper in class, I got a better understanding of what the author was trying to get across, however, I still think he could have explained his purpose better. I am sure that the book was trying to give an example of how to write a rhetoric analysis in a sneaky, unclear way, but I personally thought that the authors way of writing was not very good. It was super vauge in the important parts, and I felt like I did not understand the purpose of the paper after reading it.