This
blog post will contain the peer review for a student in my class. It will
analyze things they could work on, and something that I could learn from the
student.
2. I
decided to make an outline suggestion for my peer review. I analyzed the development
level of his outline, the rhetorical situation, and the specificity of the
evidence.
3. I
made Marvin’s outline better by suggesting things he could work on. For
starters, I recommended developing his outline more thoroughly. I suggested
creating an outline that will describe how he’ll go about developing his
argument on the wages in women’s soccer. I also recommended adding pathos into
his outline in order to create a stronger argument. Logos would also help him
explain why it is unfair that women are paid less. Marvin’s incorporation of
evidence was weak. I suggested citing specific pieces of evidence so that not
only will the audience will better understand his claim, but so will he.
4. While
I was describing things that Marvin did well, I talked about how he analyzed
various angles to this one controversy. Marvin didn’t just claim that women
were paid unjustly, but he explained how the revenue and attention received
affects the amount that the athletes make. I stated how the various aspects of
the controversy seemed to have been brainstormed. This clearly demonstrates the
use of an idea map (as can be seen on page 45). The idea of unfair pay would be
the center of the map, and the other aspects (attention, total revenue, etc.)
were branches of the map.
5. One
thing I could learn from Marvin’s outline is his discussion of various angles
that apply to one controversy. This allows for original arguments to be made. Original
stances are often difficult to come by, especially in the field of unequal pay.
This has inspired me to think differently about how I should approach my argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment