Reflection on Project II Draft

If you have noticed, or not, I have commented on two of my peers' project drafts in the past week. I have read the drafts as closely and as carefully as possible and read each at least twice. Taking into consideration the project's guidelines via D2L, I tried my best to gear my suggestions towards helping the authors meet those requirements.

Here are the hyperlinks to the two students' drafts that I reviewed and commented on: Jayni's Project 2 draft titled, "Working Title" and Brandon's Project 2 draft titled, "The Wealth of The DNA Code: The Growing Industry of Privatized Genetic Mapping".

Nic McPhee. "Editing a paper." 01/26/2008 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. Do you have an identifiable thesis? Does it point to the specific rhetorical strategies you analyze in your essay, or are you merely using vague terms like ethos, pathos, and logos?

I do include an identifiable thesis in my rhetorical essay. It points more towards strategies having to relate with appeals to credibility and character, and appeals to logic (ethos, logos). Specific rhetoric includes the acknowledgement of counter arguments and refutations, the use of an interview, and the effective organization of sub-topics within the article.

2. How have you decided to organize you essay? Does each paragraph have a central point that is supported with evidence from the text and in-depth analysis?

I have decided on organizing my essay by paragraph topics. In my first body paragraph, I talk about how the author's effective use of an interview helps his reader's better relate to the information. In the second body, I discuss and break down the organization that the author uses to format his article in a way that helps audiences navigate with ease. And lastly, in my third body paragraph, I analyzed the author's arguments that he presents to his subject and how the subject counter argues with supporting evidence.

3. Did you clearly identify and analyze several important elements of the text's rhetorical situation and/or structure?

I clearly identified and deeply analyzed three important elements of the text's rhetorical structure. Them being either appealing to credibility or appealing to logic, the elements serve to help readers better understand the context.

4. Did you explain how and why certain rhetorical strategies were employed? Did you discuss what effects theses strategies have on the intended audience and overall effectiveness of the text?

I discussed the effectiveness of the author's rhetorical strategies towards the audience. I analyzed three of the rhetorical strategies that the author used and discussed the effectiveness of their use in his article and in his interview.

5. Are you thoughtfully using evidence in each paragraph? Do you mention specific examples from the text and explain why they are relevant?

I included and meshed in multiple pieces of evidence in each one of my paragraphs. I drew from the author's article to find the information that I had included. I did indeed mention specific examples from the text and I did give an explanation as to why it was relevant in the effectiveness of portraying the right idea to the audience.

6. Do you leave your reader wanting more? 

I do not leave my reader wanting more as I gave everything he or she needs to know on the effectivity of the author's rhetorical strategies. Although maybe not the entirety of the strategies were discussed, I was able to break down the major proponents of the article for my audience.