Reflection on Project 2 Draft

In this post I will be answering several questions that help me determine what I learned from revising my peer's drafts and what I can do to revise my own.

Stilianou, Harry "Beach, Sand, Reflection, Mountain, sunset, Water" uploaded 26 October 2014 via pixabay.com, Public domain.

I revised both Hallye and Casey's rhetorical analysis essays.

Do I have an identifiable thesis?

• Yes, my thesis is clear and concise and pinpoints key elements that help the writing and how effective each of those strategies are at conveying the authors message to the audience.

Have I decided how to organize my essay?

• Yes. I have organized my essay by first talking about the logical strategies the author uses. I then continue to talk about how the author disguises his ethical strategies as logical and then conclude by talking about the author's ethical strategies.

Did I identify and analyze the five elements of the rhetorical situation?

• Yes, I have identifies who the audience of slate magazine is, the author's credentials as analyzed in the ethos section, the context which this article is in-slate magazine last year online-what the author is trying to convey and how he goes about doing it.

Did I explain how and why certain rhetorical strategies were used?

• Yes. For both the logic and ethical arguments I identified the use of the cartoon and why that is important, the transitions, and for ethical the author's expertise.

Am I thoughtfully using evidence in each paragraph?

• In each paragraph I mention either the author's background or the text but I only ever quote once. This is because the author uses strategies that do not rely on quoting but rather on the visual appearance and knowledge of the author himself.

Did you leave you readers wanting more?

• I believe I did, but that is from my point of view. I did answer the so what question about why this analysis was useful and hopefully got them thinking about different ways in which the rhetoric for physics might come in handy.