An effective way to differentiate well-articulated rhetoric as compared to flawed rhetoric is by exercising rhetorical analysis or rhetorical criticism. According to Selzer, “rhetorical analysis or rhetorical criticism can be understood as an effort to understand how people within specific social situations attempt to influence others through language” (Selzer 281). A person who studies rhetoric can take many different approaches as to how he/she wished to analyze a certain text, be it speeches, written texts, visual art, media, etc. The article, however, provides two distinct yet related methods of rhetorical analysis: textual analysis and contextual analysis. The first method, known as textual analysis, requires a researcher to concentrate on the text rather than the context (283). This means the researcher must try to understand what a rhetor is trying to convey through his/her text. One way to do this is by determining the five canons of rhetoric, which we have discussed in previous classes to be invention, arrangements style, memory, and delivery. Textual analysis allows a reader to critically appreciate/critique the piece, without putting it in context with anything else. The piece is being read individually to determine whether the rhetor has achieved the purpose of his/her writing. After studying a text, there are three categories that a researcher can divide the piece in: forensic, deliberative, and epideictic. Forensic rhetoric deals with a matter concerning of the past while deliberative rhetoric allows an audience to think about a future course of action. Aside from these two, epideictic rhetoric concerns matters at the present moment. Through textual analysis, a researcher must place the rhetor’s argument or discourse under one of the three categories. Contrary to textual analysis, one can use contextual rhetorical analysis to examine different forms of rhetoric. This approach allows analyzers to understand communication through the lens of the environment. It promotes the ideas of learning about the history and the framework of a text to understand it better and also to understand the rhetor’s mindset better. Sometimes, a piece can be written convincingly, yet knowing the context of the text, can completely change the thinking of the reader. In this sense, it is necessary for a well-informed audience to understand each communication as a response to other communications, to appreciate how people communicate, and to reflect the attitudes and values of the communities that sustain them (292). In other words, it is important to know why some is saying something, what is it a response to, and how does it change the audience’s perspective on the subject. In his conclusion, Selzer does mention how the two method of analysis do seem to complement one another. In order to be an aware audience, it is important for an analyzer to understand that rhetorical performance is a mix of both text and context. By analyzing contextual backlinks , there will never be misunderstanding on the audience’s part.