Unit 3 Peer Review Workshop: Content questions: Ashley :

1. Does the author present a thesis statement about the rhetorical effectiveness of a
peerreviewed article? Is this thesis clear and direct? What is it? Mark it in the text. What
suggestions do you have for the writer in order to strengthen the thesis? Has the author chosen
one (and only one) peer-reviewed article to analyze?
The author does not present a clear thesis statement specifically addressing the rhetorical
effectiveness of a peer-reviewed article. Instead, the essay primarily analyzes the topic of
scientism and its impact on other forms of knowledge. To strengthen the thesis, the author
should explicitly state their evaluation of the rhetorical effectiveness of the peer-reviewed article
and provide a clear argument supporting their assessment. Additionally, the essay should clarify
whether the study conducted by Ndubuisi Ani is the sole peer-reviewed article being analyzed
and provide a rationale for its selection.

2. Does the essay include a controlling idea that is not obvious to everyone? In other words,
does it reveal something not everyone would know about how and why this peerreviewed article
is used? Where can the author develop more of an analysis or more fully develop the ideas?
Yes, the essay includes a controlling idea by exploring how the peer-reviewed article challenges
the dominant perspective of scientism. The author could develop the analysis further by delving
into specific examples from the peer-reviewed article and providing more in-depth comparisons
with alternative forms of knowledge.

3. Does the author use elements from the article to support the thesis made about it? What are
they? Mark them in the text. Are they used as good evidence? Indicate why or why not in the
text. What kind of evidence would help the writer demonstrate his/her point?
Yes, the author uses elements from the article to support the thesis. Examples include
mentioning the author's division of information into segments to facilitate analysis and
referencing scholars who have acknowledged the limitations of relying solely on scientific
methods. These elements serve as good evidence because they directly relate to the argument
being made about the peer-reviewed article. To strengthen the writer's point, providing specific
quotations or examples from the article would offer more concrete evidence.

4. Does the essay maintain a cohesive focus around the thesis? Does the author use solid
transitions to guide his/her ideas? Determine, as a reader, how you want to be presented with
the information. Does the organization work for you? Indicate suggestions for organization and
transitions. Also, mark any tangents that you find in the essay.
Yes, the essay maintains a cohesive focus around the thesis, and solid transitions guide the
ideas. However, the organization could be improved for clarity. Clearer introduction and topic
sentences would help. There are some tangents that could be eliminated or integrated better
into the main argument.

5. Where could the author use more detail to further illustrate his/her claim? Indicate these
places in the text.
The author could use more detail to further illustrate their claim in several places:
1. When discussing the limitations of relying solely on scientific methods.
2. Providing specific examples from the peer-reviewed article to support the argument.
3. Offering more in-depth comparisons with alternative forms of knowledge.

Adding more specific examples and detailed explanations would strengthen the argument and
provide a clearer understanding for the reader.

6. Are the introduction and conclusion focused on the main point of the essay? Does the
conclusion answer the three questions? (1. Did I do what I said I would do? 2. Why is this
important? 3. What do I want my audience to do with this information?)
Yes, the introduction and conclusion are focused on the main point of the essay. The conclusion
answers the three questions by summarizing the main arguments, emphasizing the importance
of considering alternative forms of knowledge, and encouraging critical thinking about the role of
science in society.

7. Indicate in the text the author’s strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths:
- The author effectively presents a clear argument against scientism.
- Solid use of rhetorical strategies such as logos, pathos, and identification of fallacies.
- Provides evidence from the peer-reviewed article to support the thesis.

Weaknesses:
- The thesis statement could be clearer and more direct.
- Some tangents could be eliminated or better integrated into the main argument.
- More detail could be added in certain areas to further illustrate the claim.

8. What three revision suggestions do you have for the writer? 9. Indicate in the text where the
author needs more details.
1. Clarify the thesis statement to explicitly address the rhetorical effectiveness of the
peer-reviewed article.
2. Eliminate or integrate tangents more effectively into the main argument to maintain focus.
3. Add more specific details, examples, and comparisons to further illustrate the claims made in
the essay.

10. Indicate in the text where the author needs more evidence.
The author needs more evidence in specific areas such as when discussing the limitations of
relying solely on scientific methods and when providing examples from the peer-reviewed article
to support the argument.

11. Indicate in the text three places where the author deserves praise for this essay
1. The author deserves praise for effectively presenting a clear argument against scientism.
2. Their adept use of rhetorical strategies such as logos, pathos, and identification of fallacies
enhances the persuasiveness of the essay.
3. Incorporating evidence from the peer-reviewed article to support the thesis demonstrates
thorough research and critical analysis.