Blackburn

RC 1000
Rhetorical Analysis—Peer Review Guidelines
Answer these questions and mirror back to your peer what you find in her/his
rhetorical analysis essay.

1. Is the primary source related to the theme of this course, is it a digital text,
and is it properly cited in the essay and in the Works Cited page?
Yes.

2. Is the rhetorical analysis formatted using either MLA convention, double

spaced, 12 pt. font, and the required page length?
Yes.

3. Respond to the essay’s structure and its analysis of rhetorical appeals and
logical fallacies:
This analysis has a strong introduction, having a nice flow between the two
introductory paragraphs. The only issue would be that points aren’t clearly
being introduced about how this documentary “goes to work” on its
audience. Following the introduction, examples of how the documentary
attempts to persuade the audience are brought up and supported, followed
with a conclusion.

4. Discuss the essay’s introductory elements. Doe your peer introduce the
text, its source, and its rhetorical situation?
In the introduction, all of these above marks are hit, aside from the
documentary’s rhetorical situation, which is brought up, but could use a bit
more time dedicated to it.
5. Does your peer tell the reader the purpose of the artifact, its target audience,
and its goals?
The purpose, its target audience, and its goals are clearly introduced in the
first two paragraphs.
6. Does your peer address include a brief summary of the artifact?
Yes, a summary of the artifact is included in the second paragraph, although, I
feel that a sentence or two could be added to the summary for clarity.
7. Does your peer address the rhetorical situation and the context(s) of the
artifact—social, political, historical, cultural?
My peer addresses the cultural situation only, mainly by including the types
of people interviewed in the conclusion, I don’t see many more examples of
the contexts of the artifact.
8. What type of genre is this artifact (e.g., PSA, commercial, propaganda, etc?)
PSA, documentary, this is clearly explained in the introductory paragraphs.
9. What is your peer’s attitude toward the artifact, its subject, and audience?
My peer feels that the documentary is overall successful, but he feels that
move evidence should be provided in order for the documentary to have
 more validity in its points. I feel that a bit more time could be spent on this,
such as what the “hard-hitting claims” made that lack support from the film
are.
10. Does your peer analyze the authorities relied upon in the artifact in order to
appeal to the target audience or to make an argument?
Yes, somewhat, as he speaks of the narrator of the documentary as if this film
is giving information that you can trust, that the truth is given only through
them, this film is giving information that the big companies would never tell
you.
11. Does your peer identify the artifact’s intended audience? How does your peer
know?
It is mentioned that the intended audience is the average consumer, but it
isn’t really expanded upon as to why they feel this is the intended audience.
12. Does your peer discuss what the artifact assumes its audience knows and
what it needs to know in order for the text to work?
This is somewhat addressed in the introduction, though indirect. It could be
said that the filmmaker assumes that you’re aware of how strangely complex
certain seemingly simple food items have become, and how small farms are
struggling.
13. Does your peer examine the information, argument, reasons, evidence, data,
and structure of the artifact?
My peer examines the argument of the documentary throughout his analysis,
and the reasons primarily in the analysis of the “slippery slope” fallacy.
Evidence, data, and structure do not appear to be covered.

14. Does your peer analyze Rhetorical Appeals and use specific examples from
the text when analyzing the rhetorical appeals?
15. Ethos. Does your peer explain the integrity and background of the artifact’s
source and how that influences the text’s overall effectiveness.
Yes, it is presented, but not explained what the documentary uses to achieve
an appeal to ethos,
16. Does your peer consider if this artifact credible and trustworthy? Why?
He does, somewhat. He sees most of their claims seem well-founded and
supported by evidence, but he does also state in the conclusion that some of
their points aren’t supported well enough by facts.
17. Does your peer seem aware of the artifact’s bias?
Yes. He seems to be aware of the film’s bias toward small farms, and states so
in both the introduction and his analysis of fallacies, ethos, pathos, and logos.

18. Pathos. Does your peer address the emotional appeals within the text and
how they influence the text’s overall effectiveness?
Yes, two examples of ethos are clearly used and supported, one being the
film’s use of nostalgia and the film’s dramatisation of the struggle between
the “underdog” (farmers) and large corporations, that are taking money
“from their pocket.”
19. Does your peer address the emotions the artifact appeals to and if these
emotional appeals effective? If so, for whom?
He does. He explains why he feels that the appeal to childhood nostalgia is
effective, and how the documentary does this through a description of a
mother baking her child a pie.
20. Logos. Does your peer describe the logical appeals within the artifact and
how they influence the text’s overall effectiveness?
One example of logos being used, and an example of how it is used in the
documentary is present in the analysis.
21. What logic, reason, facts, statistics are presented?
The example given is “if you asked one hundred people on the street if they
wanted these chemicals in their food, they would say no.”
22. What evidence is used to convince the audience?
I do not see evidence for logos presented in the analysis, outside of the
example mentioned in question 22.
23. Logical Fallacies. Does your peer address logical fallacies found in the
artifact?
Yes, the “slippery slope” fallacy is addressed in the article.
24. How many logical fallacies are explored by your peer?
One fallacy, the “slippery slope” fallacy is explored.
25. What conclusions can you as the reader draw based on your peer’s analysis
of the text?
I can conclude that while this documentary has solid claims and effective
uses of ethos, pathos, logos, and logical fallacies, its arguments do still lack at
least some evidence.
26. Does your peer cite specific examples to back up claims of fallacies in the
text?
Yes, he describes the usage of nitrogen fertilization as a “floodgate on
chemical modifications for farming” when describing how the “slippery
slope” fallacy is used within their analysis.