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?
The introduction includes analysis of the problem along with historical context. The paper mentions a
specific piece of data, (40 million annual victims), however no other particulars are mentioned. This is
okay in my opinion, as specific examples of trafficking victims would probably be too long and detailed
for an intro paragraph. The intro effectively communicates the severity of the issue, and prompts the user
to adopt an attitude of resolution. The only suggestion I would make is to maybe mention a specific. Maybe
ask Jung Soo, because I feel like mentioning specifics could make your intro longer than it needs to be, and
kinda messes up the overall flow of the intro.

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?
Legislative action is not addressed in depth in the intro, but is discussed in the following paragraph.
Legislative action is not discussed in-depth regarding American efforts, but action from foreign countries
helps contextualize the ways the issue can be dealt with. A specific about legislative action is in the third
paragraph. The example is fitting to the topic and presents readers with not only an attempted solution,
but some of the hardships that came with it. Though this isn't in the introduction, I don't feel there's really
a problem with where it is in your paper, although maybe ask Jung Soo, since it's specified in these directions.

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 doesn't go into great detail to discuss why the proposed solution is the best one, but it adequately
explains the impossibility of eliminating the dark web and the human trafficking accompanying it. The thesis
addresses the problems with completely eliminating human trafficking and mentions the benefits associated
with lowering the rate. The thesis does not explain why the solution is feasible directly, but gives elements
that could facilitate a feasible solution, such as governments, law enforcement, and individuals. I'd suggest
maybe addressing a few of the specifics mentioned in the directions for this question. Other than that, the
thesis is very empowering, and gives good explanation of the overall solution while prompting individuals
to take action.

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?
Different analytical frameworks are thoroughly investigated within the body of the text. Evidence regarding
difficulties of law enforcement to handle the dark web, legislative action, and government action are covered,
which cover most of the issues that could be presented. The evidence is persuasive and relevant to the topic.
My only real suggestion would be to maybe expand upon the evidence where multiple countries were
mentioned to be addressing human trafficking. It's not really a big deal, but it's something you can add if
you think there's something within the other countries that could be helpful to your paper.

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?
Oppositional claims in regards to human trafficking are pretty much nonexistant from a moral and literal
standpoint. However, the writer mentions difficulties in stopping human trafficking, which is about as much
as someone could do with this kind of topic. Because oppositional claims aren't really present and the
difficulties of addressing trafficking were discussed, I don't really have any suggestions on anything to add.

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 pie chart graphic is a bit confusing, as it only gives URL content, despite its position next to dark web
information. I would suggest something like a pie chart that addresses the percentage of human trafficking
on the dark web versus other illegal activities.

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?
There are 3 scholarly sources as the requirement states. There isn't a book, although I'm not sure if the journal
articles that the scholarly sources are count? The sources are relevant and up to date. For the last two sources,
be sure to add indents like the rest of your sources, and the police chief magazine may need to be reformatted.

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?
A wide variety of sources are used to cover different aspects of the topic. Each source is relevant and
useful to the paragraph it is within. There really isn't an issue with the evidence used, with the exception of
the pie chart, which can just be replaced with a chart that has more specific relevance to dark web activity.

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 amount of evidence to support the argument is sufficient, but I would suggest maybe a source or two
more of data, as opposed to expert opinions. The decisions to quote or paraphrase are made properly, and the
work is presented well with the sources' content in mind.

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

This paper provides a strong overall approach to the issue of human trafficking. It discusses the obvious moral
issue, however, it also addresses the complications of countering this, and the even more difficult issue of the
dark web, where most of it occurs. The comprehensive way this paper addresses the topic as a whole is its
greatest strength.

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 could maybe be changed to match the resolute attitude present in the thesis. The use of a question
suggests a feeling of uncertainty that you don't want the paper to have.

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 thesis does a good job at appealing to ethos, logos, and pathos at the same time. The reader's emotions
are appealed to with the inherent grim nature of human trafficking, while the data provided establishes ethos
and logos, as logically the issue is serious. The appeal to pathos later on in the intro is particularly effective
at involving the reader and making them feel that they can do something to help solve the issue.

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?
The overall paper's paragraphs are solid at developing the argument, and all of them are useful for the
paper. The only one I would suggest changing is the conclusion, which I felt could be expanded to talk
more about the benefits of saving many potential victims. The tone could also be changed to match the
resolute tone present in the introduction.

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?
Everything in the essay flowed logically and there was no real issue with anything regarding coherence.

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 was the pie chart.

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?
I would recommend changing the pie chart to a pie chart that specifically focuses on the amount of human
trafficking on the dark web, or just the percentages of different activities on the dark web. Because the chart
was right next to text specifically talking about the dark web, it seemed like the chart could have been more
aligned with the tes=xt.

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 was not a caption for the graphic

d. What is the most rhetorically effective graphic that the writer uses, and why do
you say so?
By default, the pie chart is the most rhetorically effective, as pie charts in general function to appeal to
logos, as they provide easy to understand data about a topic. This in particular is a good thing to do near
the beginning of your paper, as it kinda makes the reader feel less alienated by the length of the paper if
that makes sense.

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 tone shifts from the introduction to resolute to a more academic and factual one in the rest of the
paper. In the conclusion, a personal tone is adopted. The resolute and academic tones are fine in the essay,
but I feel you don't really need a personal tone for the conclusion. It's fine if you keep it, but you don't need
to have a personal tone to involve the reader on a personal level to take action.

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.?
The paper overall is fine. The only things I could find were that you should take out "but" on the
bottom of the first page, and completely on the bottom of page 4 is okay, but not necessary.

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 good, it provides a clear opinion on the topic and discusses the issue with great
comprehensiveness. I found the overall text to be engaging with its evidence and usage of it in the scope
of the argument. My only suggestion is changing the conclusion as stated above, but it's fine asides from
that.

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 conclusion can be revised, the multimodal, and the few grammar suggestions are the only
real things I can suggest. The rest of the paper does a great job at discussing the issue and
approaching it from a realistic and well-informed viewpoint. The paper is strong in this aspect,
and overall with a few minor adjustments, it's great overall.