Reflection on Project 2 Draft

Reflecting on the Rhetorical Analysis Essay

For peer review, I worked with Trey's and Mehruba's rhetorical analysis essays. Overall, I have to say the peer editing experience was beneficial in seeing how others approached the rhetorical analysis essay and it helped me see general strategies that worked for the writing of the essay that worked across different selected texts.

Reynolds, Paul "Kitten and Partial Reflection in Mirror" 13 May 2006 via wikimedia.org.
Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

• I did have an identifiable thesis that was clearly presented in my introduction paragraph. Both my peer reviewers noticed it and used it for direction in my essay. I made it a point to identify the specific strategies the author of my selected text used, such as how she referenced the current development of artificial intelligence and our American cultural history to establish her understanding of the controversy, and how she maintained a convincing and collected tone in her piece to ease her audience's fears. However, I did not discuss my author's use of statistics and references in my thesis, although they were her least effective strategies, but made a mistake in omitting such information because I did analyze those elements in the body of my essay.

• I organized my essay in fairly standard way: introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, of course. However, my body paragraphs each were (ideally) fluid and spoke well to each other while each having a main idea. My body paragraphs covered, in order, the rhetorical situation of the text and how the author was aware of it (I may need to make this more obviously a set up for the following paragraphs), the author's personal experience and authority over the topic, the author's tone and qualification of her argument, and her use of statistics and references as logos appeals. My second to last body paragraph, it seemed, may have been too packed as some of my peer reviewers thought it would be more focused if split into two paragraphs. All my paragraphs have sufficient evidence for their points, as my peer reviewers and I spotted no lack of such support.

• I think I, as my peer reviewers also noted, covered many important aspects of the text's rhetorical argument, as I discussed in detail the author's approach to her rhetorical situation, her establishment of credibility, her use of tone and qualification to position herself as a reasonable speaker, and her use of logical statistics and references.

• I also performed thorough explanations for why the author used the rhetorical strategies that she did. Additionally, by having a paragraph dedicated to explaining the rhetorical situation of the text, I feel that the analysis present in that section framed the usage of what strategies I discussed in the rest of the essay. Honestly, I think cohesiveness to my thesis and direction of my essay were the only weak spots in my essay (judging from peer review), while the individual parts of my essay worked well.

• As stated above, I think I supplied sufficient evidence and explanation for claims I made in my essay. I made sure no claim went without evidence, and my peer reviewers noted no areas of my analysis that lacked evidence. Rather, they noted the only flaws in my essay being its cohesiveness (which I think may be attributed to its length, as it's vital to maintain a consistent direction throughout all six pages).

• I think I do, somewhat, leave my reader wanting more. While I do consistently review my analysis in my conclusion and speak to a somewhat larger picture that my author was getting at, I don't think I effectively spoke to my audience and gave them the "so what?" they may be looking for.