Hello, everyone.

My name's Ms. Keller, and welcome to today's lesson.

In this lesson, we are going to be exploring a particularly useful rhetorical device, and that is rhetorical questions.

So we're going to be analysing how and why it is effective in different types of transactional and persuasive writing, and then we're gonna have a go at using rhetorical questions ourselves.

So let's get started.

So by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to understand and emulate how opinion writers use rhetorical questions for effect.

So let's explore today's keywords.

We have rhetorical questions, opinion writing, direct address, and personal pronouns.

So I just want to draw your attention to one of these words, which is opinion writing.

So that is writing that expresses personal views on the topic backed by reasoning to persuade or inform readers.

So this is a particular type of transactional writing that you will be asked to do.

It is different to, for example, a speech because it is a written text.

and it's a sort of text we're most likely to find in newspapers, magazines, or online blogs.

So do keep that in your mind when we come to emulating the use of rhetorical questions later on.

That is the sort of transactional writing that we're aiming for today.

So do take a moment here to pause the video and familiarise yourself with all four of these definitions because these keywords, we are going to be encountering them quite frequently in today's lesson.

So pause the video here, and click play when you wish to continue.

So how is today's lesson going to look? Well, we are going to start off by thinking about what rhetorical questions are and how we use them.

And then later in the lesson, we're going to be analysing examples of rhetorical questions used to create certain effects and have impact, and then we're gonna have a go at using them ourselves.

So let's start off by thinking about how we craft engaging opinion writing.

So I'd like to begin with a quick fire discussion.

So two of our Oak pupils below have shared their opening sentences to an opinion piece.

So which of the Oak pupils here has the most effective opening sentence or opening sentences, and why? So pause the video while you have a look and make your mind up, and then when you're ready to continue, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

I could hear lots of people debating which of these sentences they thought was more effective, which is fantastic.

As an English teacher, I love it when we don't all have the same opinion because that means that you have been encouraged to justify your opinions, giving your reasons, and developing your ideas.

So that's really fantastic for me to see.

So which of these pupils has the most effective opening sentence? Well, let's start by thinking about Laura's sentence.

So Laura does use a triplet, which is a sequence of three descriptive words.

So she says, "Zoos are cruel, inhumane, and unfair," which is an effective persuasive device.

And then she does go on to state your argument clearly, "That's why I think they should all be closed down." So she does start off on a strong footing here.

However, two words of that triplet have very similar meanings in this context.

So it isn't quite as effective as it could be because cruel and inhumane do actually means similar things.

So actually, she missed out on an opportunity to add a third descriptive word here that showed perhaps a third negative element to zoos.

So let's have a look at Andeep's response.

So he begins with a rhetorical question that uses direct address, "Would you want to spend your whole life trapped in a cage?" This is effective because it grabs the reader's attention.

It means that there's no opting out of paying attention to what is being said here and engaging with that speech, Well, this second person pronoun really helps the reader to feel like they're included in the discussion and actually encourages them to consider how they would feel in the animal's position.

Could also encourage them to empathise with the animals and make them more likely to agree with Andeep's central argument because I think it's fair to say that nobody would want to spend their whole life trapped in a cage.

That is a fairly obvious question that I think most of us would agree with.

So by beginning with that, "Would you want to spend your whole life trapped in a cage? Of course, you wouldn't," so, therefore, you should agree with my argument when it comes to animals.

So actually, that was really clever, the way that Andeep has structured the opening there.

So what makes rhetorical questions different from normal questions? A rhetorical question is a question asked to make a point or for dramatic effect rather than just to elicit an answer.

So if we think about a normal question, we might say something like, "Would you like orange juice with your breakfast?" The function of that question is purely to discover information to get that answer.

"Yes, I do want orange juice," or, "No, I don't." Whereas a rhetorical question is designed to make the reader or the receiver of the question think.

So in this way, rhetorical questions can be effective in opinion pieces as they invite the reader to reflect on an issue in a new way.

And they're also engaging as they seek to communicate with the reader directly, involving them in the debate and suggesting that they have a stake in the issue at hand.

And that's similar to what we were just discussing then, looking at Andeep's opening, "Would you want to spend your whole life trapped in a cage?" That, straight away, grabs the reader's attention, and involves them in the debate because no, they probably wouldn't, and so therefore, they should listen up to the rest of Andeep's argument.

And that is why combining rhetorical questions with direct address and personal pronouns can be really effective.

It's directly speaking to your reader, and there's no opt out.

So some tips for using rhetorical questions effectively then.

So first of all, the sentence needs to be structured as a question.

So we need to see those question words, who, what, how, and a question mark.

The only other way that we perhaps could formulate a rhetorical question without using a question word might be to have our statement and then something like, "Don't you agree?" The second thing we need to make sure we're doing is that the question can be answered by the writer, but it doesn't have to be.

So Andeep did actually answer the question.

He said, "Would you like to spend your life in a cage? Of course, you wouldn't." And that can actually be a really great way to introduce your central argument by guiding the reader's opinions almost towards your argument.

But equally, you don't have to, and it can be just as effective to follow your rhetorical question with a dramatic pause, allowing readers to really consider what they think about this issue.

And then finally, it is designed to emphasise and persuade.

So make sure that you use it on key ideas that you want to draw attention to.

So make sure that you're not, in fact, distracting from your main point by asking rhetorical questions about issues that maybe we don't want to linger on.

This rhetorical question is really designed to draw the reader's attention towards what you've covered in the question, so make sure you use it really carefully.

So Izzy is writing an opinion piece about the rise of technology.

So here she says, "When did we all become so attached to technology? Everywhere I look, I see smartphones in hands." So this is a great example of a structuring that rhetorical question just like a question.

She's got that question one at the beginning and then her question mark at the end.

And the second one, "With technology so ingrained into our everyday lives, will we ever be able to live without it?" So now we look at these two options, we actually have a rhetorical question that Izzy has answered and a rhetorical question that Izzy hasn't answered.

So we can actually see the effect of both types of rhetorical question there.

And finally, both of these questions do help to emphasise and persuade.

Izzy's opinion piece is about the rise of technology, and both of her rhetorical questions here are encouraging the reader to consider their own thoughts about technology.

So she is helping them to follow her argument and feel involved in that debate.

So let's pause here and check our understanding so far.

So true or false? Rhetorical questions must remain unanswered to encourage the reader to think about their opinions.

So pause the video while you have a think, and when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer, click play.

Okay, welcome back, and well done to those of you who said false.

So why is that? Well, rhetorical questions are designed to encourage readers to consider their own opinions, but they don't have to remain unanswered.

They can be answered by the writer, but they don't have to be.

So remember, we've got those two options there.

We can guide the reader towards our central argument that we can then introduce by answering that rhetorical question, or we can help to perhaps build suspense or drama by following that rhetorical question with time for our reader to think about it, so we won't answer our rhetorical question in that case.

So now it's time for our first practise task of today's lesson.

So what we'd like you to do is to read the article, "All zoos should be closed - other species have rights" by Philip Hoare.

So this was an article from "The Guardian" newspaper online.

So a link to this article can be found in the Additional Materials section of the lesson.

So what I would like you to do is to identify the rhetorical questions used in this article.

So pause the video here while you take some time to give this a really good go and get to grips with the arguments in this article.

And when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play, and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So as I'm sure you are aware by now, there are quite a few rhetorical questions in this article.

We have got two back to back there in Paragraph 1.

"What does it take to close down zoo? The death of nearly 500 of its captives in less than four years?" And then later on in the article in Paragraph 6, we have three more.

So quite a lot for one paragraph there.

"Given that abyss, can zoos have any place in modern life?" "why run a zoo so badly that hundreds of its animals die?" and, "Is this any better than the spectacle of 18th-century Bedlam in which mentally ill humans were subjected to the stares of sane visitors?" And then we've got one more there in Paragraph 8.

"Could we configure our world to allow animals their freedom without the destructive hierarchies that allow such anachronisms as zoos to exist and in the process gain a new freedom of our own?" So in the second half of the lesson, we are going to explore some of these examples in a lot more detail.

We're going to analyse why they are or perhaps aren't effective uses of rhetorical questions.

So in order to prepare us for that, I'd like you to think about your initial responses to each of these rhetorical questions.

So which did you think had the most impact? Which had the least? And why do you think that? So take a moment to read through them all again and think about which ones you think are most or least impactful.

Perhaps share your views with the people around you or make some notes on your paper.

Pause the video here, and when you're ready to continue, click play.

Okay, so we've made it to the halfway point of today's lesson.

So now we've thought really carefully about what rhetorical questions are and how we use them, let's analyse some of these examples in more detail and then have a go at using them ourselves.

So starting off with these rhetorical questions from Paragraph 1 of Philip Hoare's article, "What does it take to close down a zoo? The death of nearly 500 of its captives in less than four years?" So why are these rhetorical questions here effective? So pause the video and reread them carefully and see if you can work out why you think it is that they would be so impactful at the beginning of an article like this.

So pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Lots of really fantastic ideas that I overheard there in your discussion.

So let's just summarise some of the key points that you guys were raising.

So first of all, I heard someone using the word provocative, which is a fantastic word to describe these two rhetorical questions.

They are provocative because they encourage the reader to consider their views on the issue.

They provoke a certain reaction from the reader, and they do this by introducing an ethical angle to this argument that actually then frames the focus of the entire piece.

For example, those zoo should be closed down.

So we've got this main argument there in that first sentence, that first question, and then we've got that emotive, perhaps provocative second question.

And actually, using these two back-to-back rhetorical questions really gets the reader to think because we have that central argument there in the first question, and then the second question, we've got that moral angle.

So initially, we've got what seems like a fairly open-ended question, "What does it take to close down a zoo?" However, then in the second rhetorical question, we've got that link to the real-world scenario that Hoare describes in the article.

So we have this, "What does it take to close down a zoo?" Perhaps the reader has time to think about the response.

Is it the death of nearly 500 captives? Because we've also got that emotive word there, captives, presenting these animals as perhaps being held against their will.

So let's explore another example, slightly longer this time then.

So I'll just read it in the wider context.

So, "As the artist and critic John Berger wrote in his essay, 'Why Look at Animals?' 'The eyes of an animal when they consider a man are attentive and wary.

Man becomes aware of himself returning the look.

The animal scrutinises him across a narrow abyss of non-comprehension.

' Given that abyss can zoos have any place in modern life? Our relationship with any animal is always exploitative precisely because we have elevated ourselves above other species." So what is effective about this rhetorical question then, there at the beginning of that paragraph? So pause the video while you take some time to think, discuss it with the people around you, and make some notes.

And when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play, and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

So well done if you are identifying that this rhetorical question has a slightly different function to the two that we were looking at a moment ago.

Here, the rhetorical question links the two paragraphs because we've got that link of the word abyss.

So we've got the word abyss that John Berger used in his essay, and then we know that Hoare is able to draw on that in the next paragraph because he says, "given that abyss." So what it's actually doing is enabling Hoare to shift from evidence about the morality, perhaps of the relationship between humans and animals, to considering the role of zoos in today's society.

So it's really helping Hoare to make that evidence relevant to his argument about zoos because, arguably, John Berger's original point is not necessarily about zoos.

So let's explore another example from the end of the article.

So, "Could we configure our world to allow animals their freedom without the destructive hierarchies that allow such anachronisms as zoos to exist, and in the process gain a new freedom of our own?" Do we think that this is an effective way to start the article's conclusion? And why or why not? So again, take a moment to think about this.

Think about the impact of the rhetorical question here.

Perhaps share your responses with people around you or make some notes.

And when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back.

I could hear that we didn't all necessarily have the same opinion.

There was lots of debating that I overheard.

So let's just explore perhaps the two sides to this debate, and we can see as we go through it which of our Oak students perhaps you felt you might have agreed with.

So it's time with Laura, who said, "Yes, the rhetorical question introduces an element of hope into quite a cynical article." Because, yeah, we've got this idea of how perhaps changing the world to suit Hoare's argument might help us to gain some sort of freedom.

It might help to improve the world.

So it really does give us that shift in tone, which is quite effective at the end of an article, particularly if it's one that's focused on a lot of negatives.

To actually give your reader a bit of hope at the end can be really persuasive because it can really encourage them to want to do something to change, to do something to solve the problem that you've raised.

However, Izzy said, "I'm worried that the final message is lost in such a long sentence with lots of complex vocabulary.

Perhaps it would've been better to be more direct." So yeah, perhaps she is acknowledging that the rhetorical question is somewhat effective, but is quite long.

That question, that sentence that is quite a long one with lots of complex vocabulary.

like configure, destructive hierarchies, anachronisms. Is it likely that this really important, key, central message of the article is perhaps lost to some readers who might not be able to follow such a long and complicated sentence? And then she actually had a suggestion for perhaps how it could have been more impactful.

So, "Instead we could have said, 'We must change our outlook on society to allow animals their freedom.

In doing so, could we gain a new freedom of our own?'" So we've still got, for example, the repetition of that word freedom that we've got in Hoare's original version, which I think is really effective, linking the animal's freedom to the freedom perhaps of humanity and of our world.

However, we've removed some of that difficult complex vocabulary because particularly when it comes to key messages in our argument, we want to make sure that it is clear and direct and cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted by our reader.

Okay, so let's pause and check our understanding.

So when using rhetorical questions in your conclusion, which of the below is important to remember? So pause the video here while you read the options carefully and decide which one you think is correct, and when you're ready for me to reveal the answer, click play.

Okay, welcome back, and well done to those of you who said B, "It shouldn't be too long or complex since we want to be clear and direct with our central message at the end of the article." So remembering back to how Philip Hoare had used a rhetorical question towards the end of his article, and we argued that perhaps it was a little bit too long and a little bit too complex that his central message perhaps was lost amongst that.

So that's something that we want to bear in mind when we're using them in our own writing.

So now it is time for the final practise task of today's lesson, and what I would like you to do is to write a paragraph responding to Hoare's article.

So do you agree or disagree with his ideas, and why? So what I've done there on the left is I've summarised Hoare's key ideas in the article.

So these are some of the main points or arguments that he is making.

So in your response to him, what I would like you to do is state your opinions clearly, so make it really clear whether you agree or you disagree with his views.

And perhaps actually challenge yourself to try to avoid using the word agree or disagree, but instead describe what you think his opinions are.

Are they insightful? Are they outrageous? There's lots of different words that we can use to express that we agree or disagree without actually saying that.

So once you've stated your opinions clearly, then it is time for you to support your ideas with reasons or examples.

So you can definitely go back to Hoare's article at this point or use some of those points there in that table.

And finally and most importantly, use rhetorical questions to engage your reader.

So you are trying to persuade your reader either that Hoare's article is very agreeable, there are lots of great points that he raises, or quite the opposite, that perhaps we shouldn't agree with Hoare, and instead, we should agree with you.

So pause the video and take as much time as you need to give this a really good go, and when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play.

Okay, welcome back So here is how you could have responded.

Remember, English is a subject where there is never just a right answer, one right answer.

It's all about whether or not your response is valid.

So this isn't the only way that you could have responded to this task, but it's just an example of one valid response.

"While Hoare raises valid concerns about the ethical implications of zoos, isn't it that he overlooks their significant contributions to conservation and education? How else can we ensure that endangered species are protected and that people, especially children, develop a meaningful connection with wildlife? Zoos provide a controlled environment where animals are safe from poachers and habitat destruction.

Moreover, the firsthand experience of seeing live animals inspires people to care about conservation in ways that virtual experiences cannot replicate.

Would we rather let species disappear in the wild or take active steps to save them, even if it means keeping them in captivity? Zoos, when managed responsibly, offer a crucial lifeline for species on the brink of extinction, serving as a bridge between humans and the natural world." So let's take some time to review your response.

And while you're doing that, I'd like you to ask yourself the following questions.

So is your central argument clear to the reader, just like it is here? The writer here has launched straight in with that argument, "While Hoare does have some valid concerns, isn't it possible there is something he's overlooked?" So we know that the writer is disagreeing with him.

Have you supported your ideas with reasons and examples? Well, yes, we've got lots here about how zoos are providing a controlled environment, animals are safe from poachers, habitat destruction, links to education, and how that inspires people to care about the natural world.

So we've got lots of different reasons and examples.

And have you used rhetorical questions to engage the readers? We've got lots of examples again there of rhetorical questions, including, just as Hoare at the beginning of his article, two back to back, really giving the reader a chance to consider their views.

So take a moment to review your response.

I'll leave these example rhetorical questions up on the screen.

Perhaps grab yourself a different colour pen or underline where you've used rhetorical questions, and even better, see if there is an opportunity for you to add in one more.

Feel free to magpie some ideas from on the screen if you'd like to.

But do try and challenge yourself to tweak or change it to the context of your response.

So pause the video here while you review and redraft, and when you're ready to continue, click play.

So we've made it to the end of today's lesson.

Well done for all your hard work, and I hope that you're feeling a lot more confident when it comes to using rhetorical questions in your own opinion writing.

So let's just summarise what we've covered in today's session.

Rhetorical questions engage the reader by encouraging them to consider their own opinions.

They're structured in the same way as a normal question.

They can be answered by the writer or left unanswered.

Both create different effects.

And finally, they can be combined with direct address to effectively grab the reader's attention.

So thank you very much for joining me in today's lesson, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.