Rafael Mendez Rubel

ENG 106- P6
Thursday April 15th, 2021
Rafael Mendez’ peer review of Rebeccah Blau’s First Revision of Essay III

1. Write out a full outline of the essay’s main points, skipping the introduction and conclusion.
After Churchill left the Admiralty, he acquired a hobby to handle stress provoked by not
being active in the office. While developing his artistry he could apply some aspects of
painting into some areas of his career, strength his memory and improve his work. He
used it as a reflective, distressing and growing pastime.

2. From your outline, identify the essay’s main topic or topics. (What do all the body paragraphs
have in common, subject wise)?
Both body paragraphs are connected by stating how painting helped Churchill out of the
office and the other how this pastime made him get improvement when returned to the
office.

3. From your outline, what do you see as the essay’s main thesis (how the body paragraphs
compare, contrast, and come together to form an argument)?
How Churchill painting pastime had a big influence on his career.
Both paragraphs come togueter with an argument.
4. Does this agree with the author’s stated thesis?
The authors thesis is “But what began as a hobby was actually an invaluable help to
Churchill in his life and career,” and completely lines up with the development of the paper.

5. In what ways might the paper need to change so that its thesis and structure are accurate
reflections of each other?
Stablish more concrete and direct reasons as opening lines in both body paragraphs. Making the
reasons more connected to the thesis may lead the reader to understand even more clearly what
you are smartly trying to explain with your analysis and examples.

6. Where is more evidence needed?

There is missing an outside resource, that could strength your analysis. Nevertheless, the
employment of the two resources is great.

7. Where are more interpretations needed?

At the very bottom of the first body paragraphs, there is a great point. Maybe you can bring that
out a little more.

8. Where do more connections or explicit contrasts need to be made between points?

I cannot find a place in which more connections or explicit contrasts are needed

9. Does the essay open in an appealing, purposeful way?

Yes, the introduction catches you. It is interesting and appealing. Something I thought somewhat
out of place were the following sentences:
 ‘They want to win the office they are running for, they need to get the most votes, they need to
get the most people to like them. In order to get people to like them, politicians will focus on
certain aspects of themselves. Their respectable, but not pretentious, upbringing, their previous
achievements, their favorite sport they played growing up; these are just some of the few things
politicians will market about themselves in order to get votes.”

After reading this, I thought that in the development of the paper I would find how this hobby
helped Churchill engage with people. But what I mostly see in the development is how it worked
as an insightful help. I was waiting for a Churchill in a campaign environment.

10. Does the essay draw a thought-provoking conclusion that puts its argument in a larger context?
What else might the conclusion explore?
It is great, but maybe it could be more provocative. Also it is kind of summarizing the content
and we should avoid that.