Alex did well and some things that he could work on.
1. The “Rhetorical
Analysis of Project 3” was done by Alexander McCarthy.
2. I chose to make a brainstorming
suggestion for Alex’s rhetorical analysis. This included making suggestions
about his understanding of Project 3 and the level of detail that he provided.
3. I made suggestions about how I thought he
could improve the detail of his rhetorical analysis. For one, I suggested
describing what the F35 program is. This is for two reasons. For one, this will
help the audience understand every aspect of his blog post better, and will be
able to give him more thorough feedback. And two, because writing a description
of the program out may give him insight as to new positions/angles that he
could take.
The other thing that I suggested doing
was explaining (in greater detail) where he came from. For instance, he stated
that his father was in the air force and that his brother had similar
interests, but never explained anything beyond that. I recommended describing
his family background in more depth so that he understands any bias he has
towards the subject in more depth. He also mentioned how people in economics
professions may see this program as bad. I asked how his family’s social status
could have influenced the way he sees the program.
4. I incorporated the asking key questions
section of A Student’s Guide to First
Year Writing (on page 46). I made sure suggest that he needed to analyze
the “Who” section of these questions in order to develop/realize any bias he
may have towards the subject.
5. One thing that I admired from Alex’s
analysis is how detailed his explanation of the purpose section of the post is.
This paints a very clear picture as to how he wants the audience to be affected
by this argument. This made me realize that I should develop my purpose more
thoroughly in order for me to better understand what I want out of the
argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment