Reflection on Project 2 Draft

This post is to reflect on the drafting process of the rhetorical analysis.

I peer edited Michael and Alex's drafts.

1. Do I have an identifiable thesis? 

Yes. My thesis is identifiable, but it definitely needs to be more specific. Michael and Alex had a thesis that was also slightly broad. They have since made theirs more specific and mention the specific ways they will talk about rhetorical analysis

2. How have I decided to organize my essay? 

I talk a lot about the credibility of the author and the appeal to logic because those are the main strategies the author uses. Some of the feedback I got was I followed the PIE format to strictly and need to flesh my paragraphs out more.

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

Yes. Like I said in the last point, I talks the most about credibility and appeal to logic because those were the main strategies used. Through the editing process, I realized that even though the author did not use much appeal to emotion, that I need to mention that. I plan on going back and talking about how the author could make a stronger argument if he used just a little bit of pathos. 

4. Did I explain how and why certain strategies were employed? 

no. I don't think I adequately did this. I was still stuck on the idea of writing about the controversy rather than writing about the rhetorical strategies. 

5. Am I thoughtful using evidence in each paragraph?

I do use some evidence and direct quotes but I think I can use more to improve my argument. 

6. Do I leave my reader wanting more? 

I answer the "so what" question pretty well in my conclusion. I think I can add more of the "so what" throughout my paper to make the reader aware of why it's important from the beginning.