Rhetorical Analysis Peer Review Ariel Tix


I am most worried about how my essay flows and if it makes sentence the way it is written.


  • First, help the writer with their stated concerns ^

I think it's a bit choppy, but I understand what you're trying to get across (LD)
I think you did okay in getting your point across/flow of things but I would also like to see more organization when encountering specific subj. (ex. a paragraph on missing support or how Nicholas Carr supports his evidence.) [K.W]

  • How well can you follow the writer's line of reasoning? Are there any places where you got a little lost, or things seemed less clear?

The line of reasoning seems a little back and forth. Some ideas are repeated in the second paragraph (LD)
As LD has said already there are repeated information, it causes a cluster and there is no need for repeated information.

  • Does the writer address the rhetorical situation sufficiently (purpose, audience, author, genre, and context)? If not, where do you think they need to add or clarify information?

Yes, just include the genre (LD)
Everything is presented except for genre, it may seem ideal to build upon the purpose with the use of how Carr uses his support/evidence. [K.W]

  • Does the writer identify the:
    • catalyst - yes (LD) Yes [K.W]
    • main claim (thesis) - yes (LD) Yes [K.W]
    • supports - yes (LD) Yes (You can build on what Nicholas Carr provides as support for his claim or things that are missing.)[K.W]
    • linkages - yes, but could use more explanation (LD) Yes (Just attempt to be more precise and straight forward about the linkage.) [K.W]
    • implications - yes (LD) Yes [K.W]
  • Does the writer give evidence from the article to back up their analysis?

Some evidence. Don't forget that Carr included a study from University College London to back up his claims. (LD)
I feel that your analysis could present more evidence to what you're claiming his work to be. [K.W]

  • Finally, write a few sentences describing your reactions to the text as you were reading it.

I think you're on the right track. You have all of the elements included in your paper, it just needs a little revision in terms of making it flow (grammar) and making sure you hit the minimum number of words. Overall, your ideas are present and look good. You hit all of the points that needed to be hit, just add more detail to make it flow altogether. (LD)

I feel that your paper itself has a good flow, but more organization can come into play and grammar needs to be fixed. Also prolong your Rhetorical Analysis to create more of a flow of information regarding what you are trying to portray. Overall the ideas you have are great and can be built upon. [K.W]

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License