Rhetorical Analysis Peer Review K W

Writers

In regards to this writing assignment, what are you most worried about?
Grammar, and hopefully the flow of my paragraphs

Reviewers

  • First, help the writer with their stated concerns ^

(Stated down below)

  • 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?

Decently well; there were a few places I kind of got lost (between second and third paragraph) (LD)

  • 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, I particularly like you explanation of the lack of linkages in your third paragraph! (LD)

  • Does the writer identify the:
    • catalyst - yes (LD) __Identified the catalyst as possibly him having trouble reading __
    • main claim (thesis) - yes (LD)
    • supports - yes (LD)
    • linkages - yes (LD)
    • implications - yes (LD)
  • Does the writer give evidence from the article to back up their analysis?

Yes! Your ability to take Carr's "support" and debunk his credibility is great! (LD)

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

I like your direction in your first paragraph to start it out. I'd only suggest to make sure to cite where you got the information about The Atlantic. Some of the words/ideas in the first paragraph seemed a little repetitive, though. You nailed all the elements of this assignment, but it sounds a little choppy. Add more detail/support to make it flow better or rearrange some sentences. I think your mention of Socrates should be put in your third paragraph because it kind of threw me for a loop and I got a little lost. Your conclusion doesn't exactly wrap things up; it proposes another idea that could be places elsewhere in your paper. All in all, your ideas are clear, just a little choppy. You did a great job in your third paragraph! I love how you explained everything so thoroughly! (LD) I enjoyed your analysis I think it's pretty sound, you included everything that was required one thing I thought was funny is when you said " his so-called friends" I guess I don't know why that was added, I think you meant to draw attention to them as they are friends and a bias form of evidence. Your use of the text as evidence is very helpful to prove your pointAriel Tix

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