Part 1: Analysis, Evidence, and Sources

1) Does the draft begin with a paragraph or two analyzing the problem and its relevant
historical causes? Does the introduction include specific examples (warrants) that
establish the problem’s urgency and severity? How specific and detailed is the
presentation of the problem and its history? How effective are the examples? What
suggestions do you have for improving this analysis of the problem and its history?
Overall the introductory paragraph is solid. It gives brief examples of the issues behind marajuana
legalization in the past and contextualizes the issue in modern times. It also explains the medical
benefits, which help make the claim of legalizing marijuana use more substantiated.

2) Is there at least one other separate paragraph in the introduction that presents a policy
solution? How detailed is the description of this policy, including who proposed it, how
it works, and what state of development/implementation it’s in? How well does the
writer connect the specific details of this solution to the specific details of the problem?
How well do you think this solution fits the problem? Does the writer need to find a
better policy solution? What suggestions do you have for improving the writer’s
presentation of their solution?
The introductory paragraph is not split into two parts/paragraphs. There is no mention of a
particular policy solution that was proposed by someone, but the paper presents a legislative
solution. However, later in the paper, specifics are mentioned along with costs and benefits of
implementing such a policy. I guess I'd suggest mentioning in the opening paragraph a specific
example of legislative action that somebody is trying to accomplish, but just be careful to not make
it repetitive in conjunction with the rest of the paper.

3) Is there a thesis statement at the end of the introduction that argues why this policy is the
best solution to the problem? Does this thesis statement include all the analytical
frameworks: causation, cost/benefit, feasibility, comprehensiveness? Does the thesis
merely state “policy x is best because it’s feasible, etc.” or does it offer specific details
explaining why/how the solution is feasible, etc.? What suggestions do you have for
making the thesis more specific and detailed?
The thesis at the end of the introduction does mention benefits but not costs, although costs are
mentioned later in the paper somewhat. The actual thesis doesn't address feasibility or
comprehensiveness, so I would suggest maybe adding more to the thesis about these specifics.
Perhaps something addressing the specifics or the full scope of how legalization would work?
These are mentioned later in the paper, so you would only need to briefly outline them in the
thesis.

4) In the body of the composition, how well does the writer explore the different analytical
frameworks? Does the writer use persuasive and appropriate evidence? Does the writer
rely on expert support? Are there instances of aimless summary, rather than consistent
analysis? What suggestions do you have for improving the logic and insight of the
writer’s arguments?
The evidence provided in the paper overall was persuasive and useful. The initial contextualization
of marijuana use in the media was effective in conveying the public's general viewpoint of
marijuana use. The later discussion surrounding economic benefits of legalization, along with
evidence of lowered crime rates from legalizing marijuana use was insightful and very good at
supporting the argument this paper makes. Most of the evidence comes from experts, which I
don't see a problem with. Overall, I don't really have any suggestions on how to make the
evidence better, as it is pretty comprehensive in supporting the argument.

5) How well does the writer address and undermine oppositional claims? Does the writer
treat the opposition fairly or does the opposition serve as a “straw man”? Does the writer
acknowledge any potential weaknesses or limits of their chosen policy? How persuaded
are you by the writer’s refutation of oppositional claims? What suggestions do you have
for improving the writer’s refutation and/or treatment of the opposition?

The counterarguments are comprehensive, in that they address the moral issues of marijuana
usage, along with concerns of addiction among users. The story of the six year old who needed
it to prevent seizures was a good choice in supporting the argument. The mention of it being a
moral issue was a good counterargument, but it wasn't really refuted, but it was just stated that
more people are changing their stance when presented with scientific data to prove its medical
benefits. However, this isn't really a counterargument that can be refuted, as it is a moral issue,
rather than an issue about financial costs, but it was a good choice to bring it up, as leaving it
out would be ignoring one of the biggest issues with legalization.

6) If the writer has included graphics in this first draft, how well are they integrated into the
body of the essay? Does the writer discuss their graphics directly? Is there a variety of
different kinds of graphics? Do the graphics contain captions with source information?
What suggestions do you have for improving the integration of graphics?
The only graphic is the instagram post, which is a fine choice for the paper. It isn't as useful as
a chart with statistics about marijuana legalization or lowered crime rates, but it can still be kept.
Maybe add a chart with data about your topic? Other than that, the graphic is discussed in the text,
and is relevant and worth keeping.

7) Look at the works cited page: does it contain at least five scholarly sources from peer
reviewed journals or books? Does it contain at least one book? How credible and timely
are the popular sources? Are all the sources correctly cited in MLA format? What
suggestions do you have about additional or better types of sources the writer needs to
make a solid argument?
The works cited does not seem to have the required three scholarly sources. The sources are
good in terms of how relevant they are. There is no source that comes from a book, but scholarly
articles are present (I'm not sure if those count as coming from a book since they're in a journal).
I'd suggest a few more scholarly sources, but other than that they're fine.

8) In the body of the composition, how well does the writer use and integrate sources? Does
the writer use sources for different purposes: to introduce factual, undisputed
information, to supply evidence that the writer analyzes or interprets, and to incorporate
and engage key concepts? Is each source properly and appropriately introduced with
authors’ credentials, and followed up with commentary making sure the reader
understands how this information is relevant to the overall argument? What suggestions
do you have for improving source integration?
Overall the use of evidence in the paper was solid. Every thing brought up served a purpose and
there was never an instance where I would suggest removing a source. I liked that the evidence
was comprehensive, as it addresses the public's view on marijuana, economic benefits,
and studies on crime rates in cities where marijuana was legalized. I'd suggest talking a little
more about the legislative difficulties and past attempts at legalization even though you did
mention it, as it felt a little less covered than the rest of the topics for evidence.

9) Is there a sufficient amount of evidence to support the argument? Is there a good balance
between quantitative and qualitative evidence? Does the writer generally make good
choices about when to quote and when to paraphrase or summarize information from
his/her sources? What suggestions do you have for improving uses and presentation of
evidence?
The only suggestion I'd make for evidence was as stated above, to add a bit more on legislative
difficulties. Aside from that, The variety of evidence used was good, as it had some expert opinions
along with actual data (from the cities that legalized usage), which made the argument feel more
well-rounded.

10) What is the paper’s single greatest strength? Explain!

The greatest strength of the paper is the wide variety of evidence it uses. It brings up supporting
arguments for marijuana use that I hadn't thought of, such as putting illegal dealers out of
business and lowering crime rates. This makes the paper insightful in its supporting evidence,
and provides a convincing and innovative approach to the controversial issue.

Part 2: Organization, Language, Style, Ethos, and Multi-Modal Argumentation

1) Does the draft have a descriptive, compelling title? “Composition 2” doesn’t count.
What suggestions do you have for improving or generating a title?
The title is just AP Project Draft 2. I'd suggest a title that aligns with the unique perspective you
provide on the legalization of marijuana. I thought your perspective made a lot of sense from an
economic incentive, so maybe the title could kinda reference that?

2) Does the introduction grab your attention and/or pique your interest, rhetorically
speaking? What suggestions do you have for using ethos, logos, and/or pathos to
persuade the reader (you) that their chosen policy is the best solution to the problem?
The introduction mostly appeals to a reader's sense of logos, as it states facts without any appeal
to the emotions. I don't think an emotional appeal is the best strategy for this paper. The paper
establishes ethos with the evidence provided later in the paper along with the perspective provided
in the introduction. I would suggest maybe mentioning things in the introduction that most readers
would not expect, such as details about economic benefits and lowered crime rates.

3) Does each paragraph develop one main idea? Is it always clear why Sentence B follows
Sentence A? Are there many overly long, jumbled paragraphs or overly short,
underdeveloped paragraphs? What suggestions do you have for improving paragraph
development?
My only suggestion for paragraphs is the second one, which is the only instance where
cyberspace is mentioned. The paragraph felt short and like it could have been explained more and
tied into the purpose of the paper a little more.

4) Does the writer use transitional devices between paragraphs? Do you ever “get lost”
when reading the paper? Is it always clear why Paragraph D follows Paragraph C? What
suggestions do you have for clarifying the relationship between paragraphs and/or the
development of an idea over more than one paragraph?
The transitions in the paper are fine, and the general flow of the paper never feels compromised.
I don't really have a suggestion as to anything to do, as there isn't anything inherently wrong
with the current format of the paper.
5) Evaluate the writer’s use of multi-modal argumentation:
a. Does the draft include 3-4 pieces of graphic evidence? Is there a variety of
different kinds of graphics (graphs, illustrations, photographs, etc.).
The only multimodal source is the instagram picture of Snoop Dog.

b. All multi-modal elements should add something substantial to the argument, even
if it’s just pathos. Are there any that don’t seem to be doing much work for the
argument? Should they be deleted/replaced, or could the writer fix the problem by
talking about the image more directly in the text?
The multimodal source is okay, but it doesn't really provide anything that I couldn't believe from
the text. Maybe include a multimodal of a chart with data that will strengthen the argument
of the paper, as it would give a wider variety of sources.

c. Do the graphics all include a caption that cites where it came from? Specify
which graphics need captions or better captions. (See
AGWR
p. 261-266)
There is no caption, although the graphic is explained in the text.

d. What is the most rhetorically effective graphic that the writer uses, and why do
you say so?
Instagram screenshot by default is the most rhetorically effective one. It's mostly an ethos
based one because it supports the credibility of the writer, as it shows a knowledge of the general
viewpoint held about marijuana use.

6) How would you describe the writer’s overall tone? Is it a good fit for the subject? Does
the writer present herself as a knowledgeable and credible
advocate
, as opposed to a
university student or something else? Where do you see the writer employing ethos and
pathos (not just logos) to persuade the reader? How successful are these appeals to
credibility and emotion? What suggestions do you have for improving tone and/or the
writer’s use of rhetorical appeals?
The paper maintains an academic tone throughout the paper and mostly appeals to logos and
etgos. This is held throughout the entire paper, and pathos isn't really in the paper. However, I don't
think the paper needs an appeal to pathos, as the arguments it makes don't really have a place for
emotional appeal within them.

7) How clear and effective are the writer’s sentences? Where do you see instances of
passive voice that should be changed to active voice? Do you notice any patterns of error
(frequent misused commas, semicolons, strange or inaccurate word choices, confusing
sentence structure, etc.)? What suggestions do you have for improving sentence structure
and word choice: reducing wordiness, placing most important information near the
beginning of the sentence, increasing clarity, etc.?
Grammar and sentence structure are fine. The only issue was already stated, with the second
paragraph. Grammatically it's correct, but in terms of clarity, I think adding more to relate it to
the topic would be helpful.

8) How would you characterize the writer’s style? Is the composition easy to read and
understand? Do you find the language and narrative development interesting, lively,
eloquent, or emotionally/intellectually engaging? What suggestions do you have for
improving style and/or narrative development?
The writing style is primarily academic. The paper is clear and develops the argument from a logical
perspective. I found the argument about putting illegal dealers out of business and reducing crime
rates particularly insightful, as I would never have considered them. The only real thing I could
suggest is adding a bit more to the difficulties of legalization as it felt a little underdeveloped,
but other than that, I think the paper is great overall.
9) Describe the quality of revisions you see in this new draft of the essay. What else does
the writer need to continue working on? What is the paper’s single greatest strength?
Explain!
The paper's greatest strength is the compelling and comprehensive nature of its evidence.
More work can be done surrounding the issues of legalization and making the second paragraph
more cohesive with the paper. Asides from that, nothing about the paper stands out as needing to
be fixed.