Analysis of Sam Santavica’s Essay, by Spencer Reisig

1. How effective is the introduction to the essay? Does it supply sufficient context and
direction for the evolving discussion?
The introduction is very concise. It starts with a captivating attention grabber and then
successfully focuses down the larger topic to the thesis. The context and direction of the essay
are immediately apparent, despite not being directly mentioned until the thesis itself, which is
also quite good.
2. Reflect on the essay’s success in identifying and analyzing the rhetorical strategies at
work in the text being discussed. Is the discussion comprehensive and thorough? Do
the comments on rhetoric suggest a clear understanding of rhetorical principles on the
part of the writer? Any omissions that you feel should be addressed, filled in?
Do to the disconnect in communication, the essay is a little less rhetorical and more
informational. However in the sense of analyzing the methods of which Amazon carry out their
practices as well as relating the subtopics to the overall argument/thesis, the essay is well
made. A small note that can be given is, although the evidence is well organized, the reasoning
behind their inclusion/the effect is slightly less in depth, and could be elaborated.
3. In what ways does the essay address the concepts of surveillance, social control, and/or
power hierarchies? How does the discussion illuminate your understanding of the ways in
which Foucault operates rhetorically?
The essay addresses these topics extremely well, highlighting the multitude of ways that Amazon
uses manipulative and calculated ways to control and serveil their users. However, as mentioned
in the previous answer, this essay was written on the privacy policy topic and is not an analysis
of Panoptacism, thusly Foucault is not mentioned.
4. How convincing and thorough is the evidence the writer uses to support the claims of the
essay? What evidence do you find to be particularly strong? Does the sequence in which
the writer presents evidence work well?
The evidence very successfully supports the claims that are made within the essay. Each of the
claims is backed up by a multitude of real world examples that identify how Amazon is both
clear in their actions, yet still malicious in their intent. The general idea of restriction that is
evidenced in Amazon's practices is highlighted to be downright scary to the extent that it is
executed. The sequence itself does not seem to have any extreme importance, however it does
not seem out of place.
 5. Comment on the writer’s grasp of his/her own rhetorical situation? For instance, remark
on the essay’s purpose and evaluate the writer’s success in achieving this purpose.
Reflect on the assumed audience for the essay: is the essay “well-packaged” for the
intended audience? Is the writer’s tone appropriate for this particular writing task? Does
the author succeed in establishing ethos down to the smallest details by presenting a
neat, proofread essay that conveys a seriousness of purpose?
The purpose of the essay is adequate represented in the essay itself. It is informational and
straight to the point, and does not stray away from providing all the facts. However, it is slightly
lacking in ethos. There is not a ton of context for each point given, and each part is mostly given
in a very flat, matter of fact way. I believe the reasoning/analysis of Amazon’s purpose, while not
initially highlighted in the thesis itself, should be elaborated further, in order to provide a bit of
breathing room as well as to make the absorption of the content given a bit easier.
6. State, in your own words, the writer's thesis. What is his or her specific argument about
the rhetoric surrounding a particular issue? In other words, what is his or her main
claim, and what is the evidence he or she is using to support that claim? If you have
difficulty paraphrasing the thesis, then say so and explain why. Also attempt to explain
what might make it better.
The writers thesis is essentially, Amazon’s privacy policy describes the methods they take to
protect the content they collect, although their priority is on the collection, not the protection.
This is done through describing how Amazon describes their protections, which is emphasized
through literal evidence, and then transitioning to how they collect information, which is also
emphasized through literal evidence.
7. List those places in the draft that you think might not belong, that might be off-focus or
do not support the central thesis.Explain why you think they might not belong and how
they might be revised to belong if possible. (Or perhaps they should simply be cut.)
The essay does not necessarily include any sections that should be removed. There are parts
that could be restated in a different way, and there is quite a bit that needs to be added for the
flow and function to be more adequate.
8. What do you think is working well in this draft?
The evidence and tone are well portrayed, and I left the essay feeling a sense of existential
dread, which I think is a good goal.
9. Other comments?
These questions are in the context of a different analysis than the final essay will be.