This
blog post will explain the weaknesses and strengths of my rough draft. This post
will also notify my peer reviewers of aspects I would like them to know or look
out for. My rough cut can be found here.
1. There
are a few key pieces of information that I would like my peer reviewers to
know. For one, this is my first time ever constructing a QRG. With that being
said, it may not seem like much of a QRG to you (perhaps just an essay with a
few hyper links). I would also like to point out that my argument may not seem
very straightforward. It sounds okay to me, but it could certainly sound different
to someone else. I had difficulty attempting to explicitly state my argument
while still keeping the conventions of a QRG. Also, please take in to account
that it has been a while since I have composed an argumentative piece. My
argument/rebuttal may very choppy and out of place.
2. There
are a few obvious weaknesses in my paper. I believe the first to be the
presentation of my argument. My claims and ideas are kind of hidden in the
paper. It was hard to outright state them while still following the format of a
QRG. With that being said, please let me know if it is difficult to understand what
my argument is. Another weakness my QRG has is the acknowledgement of the
counter-argument. Yes, you’re right, I state what the argument is and why they
are making it. However, I am not sure I successfully created a rebuttal to
those statements. Here’s a question I would like you to help me answer: is it
better to explicitly state the counter argument and my rebuttal or simply
describe my rebuttal without ever directly addressing the counter? I was also
fairly brief in my incorporation of pathos into my argument. Are there any
places in which I could incorporate emotion that don’t have them already?
3. Even
though there are certainly weaknesses, I believe my QRG has a few major
strengths to it. For one, I believe I successfully incorporated the
conventions/format of a QRG. The use of colloquial language, images, and
hyperlinks all contributed to this. Please let me know if I actually used these
conventions effectively. If I didn’t, how could I improve them. Another
strength my QRG has is the development of the controversy at hand. I believe my
publication effectively discusses the SAT and why it could be considered a controversy.
Again, if you think that the topic isn’t introduced clearly, please notify me
and how I could go about doing that.
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteI think that your QRG is off to a really great start. The only recommendation that I have is to add more pictures and to play around with different font sizes and styles. I was marked down for not being visually appealing enough in my QRG so just keep that in mind when you are finalizing your project. Otherwise great job.
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteI like the QRG. However, there are a few form edits that you can make. Page three has a lot of white space that should be taken out. Also, do not label your QRG with numbers, as that is not a convention seen on QRG's. Look at a site such as Vox news to see the format of QRG's, it really helped me in my project.
Ben-
ReplyDeleteThis is such a great start! Already looks better than my final copy. Some things that could help would be re-phrasing the title and sub-categories to better fit genre conventions. I think your title would be a great subheading, but the title itself should be more like: Everything you need to know about the New SAT.
I think your first sub-heading "So, What's New?" is in line with genre conventions, but your others could be more in line with showing exactly what you'll explain. I also think that you could dedicate a whole subheading to how the new SAT is so unfair for people who don't have access to good resources, just to put it all in one section and make it easier to read.
Great job so far, hope the rest of the process goes well!