Rhetorical Analysis Peer Review Tj

Peer Review

Writers

In regards to this writing assignment, what are you most worried about?
That I may not have answered or identified every thing, especially the catalyst.

Reviewers

  • First, help the writer with their stated concerns ^
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • Does the writer identify the:
    • catalyst
    • main claim (thesis)
    • supports
    • linkages
    • implications
  • Does the writer give evidence from the article to back up their analysis?
  • Finally, write a few sentences describing your reactions to the text as you were reading it.

Paris' Peer Review
Your Rhetorical Analysis at the moment is not lengthy yet, so finding you line of reasoning was pretty up front. You mainly state that you noticed that the author is uncomfortable how the Internet is "tinkering" with his brain and how he reads. You could elaborate on this and possibly explain if you also find this change in your reading caused by the Internet. You need to state the purpose, audience, author, genre, and context. These are fairly easy, but i had some trouble with the context. The catalyst is kind of stated in the line of reasoning because clearly the problem with the author is that he can't read as diligently anymore. You could elaborate on the catalyst some more though. You need to find the main claim, supports, linkages, and implications. Once you find these things you should back them up with examples from the article. The support was tricky for me because I wasn't sure if it was good or bad support. The linkage is pretty easy to identify because it's usually found at the end of paragraph and helps determine if the support is good and backs up the claim well enough. The implications can be lengthy because the outcome of this article could vary. It's all up to your view on how people will take this article and how they will react to it. You have a good start and picked up the main idea of the article pretty easily. Just adding more to what you have and finding the main topics that Anna wants us to be able to identify will make your analysis lengthier. Don't forget to give examples of all the different aspects you find in this article.
After reading your Rhetorical Analysis once you added more to it, I liked your views of the article. I agreed with what you were saying. You stated his claims and how he supported his claims and whether or not his support was adequate. Then you went on to give your opinion on his claims and support. Your line of reasoning is clear. You need to add something about the purpose, audience, author, genre, and context.

Logan Hamnes Peer Review
I followed his line of reasoning very well. He addresses some of the rhetorical situation, but doesn't address the audience, genre, or context. He does provide evidence from the article to back up his analysis. Overall he did a decent job and i can understand what he's trying to say, but he's missing a few things on his rhetorical analysis.

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