a case where a person (or group of people collectively) is simultaneously a rhetor and an audience for the same rhetorical situation

1. Can you imagine a case where a person (or group of people collectively) is simultaneously a rhetor and an audience for the same rhetorical situation? Have you ever been that rhetor-audience? Please share your story or imagined scenario. Alternatively, share why you think this is an impossible situation.
2. Answer question 5 from page 510 of Writing About Writing (at the end of Grant-Davie’s explanation of rhetorical situations): “As a writer, how would it help you to be aware of your rhetorical situation and the constraints it creates?”
3. Choose any other question from the end of Grant-Davie’s piece (on page 510), then answer it. Include the question with your response.
4. Think about Tia Baheri’s post, “Your Ability to Can Even: A Defense of Internet Linguistics.” How does what Baheri have to say in her post reflect the primary threshold concept of this unit? (“Good” writing is dependent on writer, readers, situation, technology, and use.”) What connections can you make between this post and the things Downs and Grant-Davie have said about rhetoric in our textbook? When have you encountered ideas such as “the internet ruins language”? What are your thoughts about this idea?
5. Name one concept from this lesson that you most struggle(d) to understand. What about this concept, term, or idea is troublesome? What do you currently think it means, whether you feel certain or not?

Answer at least 3 of the above questions with, at minimum, a 3-5 sentence paragraph. In-depth, thoughtful, and careful responses are encouraged. Be specific where possible. Label your answers or include the text of the questions so readers know which questions you are responding to.

When it’s time to respond to your peers’ answers, respond to at least two peers. Your responses should also contain a few sentences per question, at the least. Respond as completely as you can. One-word or generic responses are not appropriate here. Your responses should contribute something new to the conversation.

When responding to answers for the last question (troublesome concepts), please provide your understanding of the concept or idea that your peers struggle to understand. Perhaps the way you understand it (and thus communicate it) will be helpful for them. If you, too, struggle with that concept, let your classmate know they’re not alone. It may be that in discussing the issue together, you both come to understand the concept better.

Initial posts for a discussion can earn up to 15 points. Each answer is worth a total of five points:

• Two of those five points are earned by providing, at least, a 3-5 sentence paragraph in the answer.
• Two of those five points are earned by providing an on-topic answer that demonstrates honest engagement with the question and course concepts.
• The fifth point is earned by labeling answers, whether with reference to the question number or by including the text of the question with the response. (For Discussions 4, 8, and 12, these points are freebies!)
• For Discussions 4, 8, and 12, which have only one question, the above score is multiplied by three.

Responding to peers’ answers in a discussion provides for up to 12 points. You must respond to a minimum of two students to receive full credit, so each response is worth six points:

• Three of those six points are earned by responding to all of the answers provided by your peer.
• Two of those six points are earned by providing thoughtful responses that demonstrate engagement with your peer and their ideas. (Responses made of one brief sentence or an unsupported claim will not count.)
• The sixth point is awarded for labeling responses to the answers, whether with reference to the question/answer number or by including the text of the question and answer. (For Discussions 4, 8, and 12, these points are freeb