Peer Review Sheet for the Rhetorical Analysis paper

Reviewer: Tyler Judd Author: Katie Jones

1) How could the analysis make more effective use of the rhetorical triangle and
all of its parts? How effective are the examples for Ethos, Logos, and Pathos?

Your examples of pathos are good but in the second paragraph, your
second example of pathos quote you pulled from the text is a little long in my
opinion, almost like a block quote. Same thing is prevalent in your ethos
examples, although they are good, they seem to run a little long. Not sure
exactly what the professor requires for a block quote, but you might want to
check- I’m pretty sure he said no block quotes in the paper.

2) How could the formal structure of the argument be made more clear, i.e. the
claims that build to the conclusion, the deductive and inductive portions of
reasoning and what they rely on?

Your one inductive example I thought was very good and you
explained it good however there is only one. For deduction I didn’t see any
quotes from the text and instead seems like you summarized some of the
text. It was a good summary, but I think he is looking for direct quotes of
induction from the text itself.

3) How could the composition of the paper be improved? Does it follow a logical
analytical sequence or ramble? Does it cover all the relevant materials or are
their large gaps left empty? Is it mechanically proficient and consistent with
the expected quality of writing at the college level?

Besides not being completely done, I think it overall is pretty good and
follows some sort of sequence. Overall you did a pretty good job with pathos,
ethos and logos. What’s next I think would be to find one more example of
induction, 2 examples of deduction, then you’re concluding paragraph (might
be able to keep your summary paragraph). Overall it is good and flows pretty
good, not just rambling. Good job.