Peer Review Workshop You will complete one peer review per essay in the attachment. So you will end up sending me 2 of those. PEER REVIEW WORKSHOP YOUR NAM

Peer Review Workshop You will complete one peer review per essay in the attachment. So you will end up sending me 2 of those. PEER REVIEW WORKSHOP
YOUR NAME:
REVIEWER’S NAME:
FOR YOU TO ANSWER
What are your biggest concerns about your draft? What questions do you want
your peer to answer in their review of your draft?
FOR YOUR REVIEWER TO ANSWER
Take a look at this writer’s introduction. Do you feel that they’ve included
enough contextual information? What else might they add to this section to
make it stronger?
What is the writer’s thesis statement/central argument? If they have a
sentence or two that sums it up, rewrite it here:
Which strategies did this writer choose to discuss to support their argument?
Examine these paragraphs. Do you think the writer does an effective job of
explaining why these strategies are persuasive in the text? Why or why not?
Does the writer take the audience into consideration when analyzing
strategies? If not, how could they incorporate this into these analytical
paragraphs?
Did this writer include a counterargument? Which strategy did they focus on
for this counterargument?
Do you feel like the writer adequately explains why this strategy isn’t used
effectively? Why or why not?
What are your final comments/suggestions for this writer?
Dari Behrashi
Professor Kerford
Rhetorical Analysis #1 ROUGH DRAFT
Feb 25th, 2019
ROUGHT DRAFT #1
Intro
In Sam Biddle’s Article, “Justine Sacco Is Good at Her Job, and How I Came to Peace
With Her”, he strongly utilizes emotional appeal throughout his article. Biddle attempts to
neutralize the situation transpiring regarding Justine Sacco and gives a more forgiving approach.
He attempts to give a sense of how relatable she is in how she is someone “you can go out and
get drinks with”. Biddle attempts to subtly paint an image that she just made an honest mistake,
and that it was a joke. He goes on to elaborate upon his remorse for posting her tweet, and how
he was afraid to say it to Justine directly at first. He uses strong vernacular such as “that part was
heartbreaking” in order to induce a sense of pity for her.
This article takes a more logical approach and discusses many of the points that I
discussed initially in class. She says how “if she hadn’t hit send, perhaps her life wouldn’t have
changed.”, which means that she is only being punished because she has been exposed. She
perhaps may still think immorally internally, however this time was ousted for poor word choice
in a tweet. It’s interesting how you only start to care once you are caught. I also gathered that if
she had been of that race she talked about, this wouldn’t have received such attention.
I believe that Biddle’s argument would be more successful in persuading it’s intended
audience.
BP #1
Call to Action, Humanize, Sympathetic tone
–
He utilizes I, We, Us throughout the article. By doing this, he is trying to incite a call to
action, implying that we all need to make this change and right this wrong.
–
He attempts to evoke an emotional appeal, especially when he discussed his “heart
breaking for her”.
–
He discusses how he was the one who posted her tweet (giving himself credibility) prior
to saying that we should forgive her for what she did. He suggests that we all make
mistakes, and that she is a good PR executive. He repeats that she deserves to be
employed.
–
Biddle attempts to humanize her by attempting to induce pity, while also describing his
experience “grabbing drinks” (Nuetralizing word choice). This attempt to illustrate an
experience that seems relative to the average individual is subtle but powerful.
Unfortunately, only the weak minded audience would not be able to deduce the fact this
is a biased, sugar coated article attempting to abolish any type of accountability.
Instances like this tend to develop into far worse situations when we incubate and
condone behavior like this.
BP #2
Downplay seriousness
He claims (She could secretly be extremely racist…) that Sacco’s tweet was just an
instance of misinterpreted sarcasm, downplaying the seriousness of AIDS and Racial issues we
experience on our planet. By ignoring these serious factors, he lightens the power behind what
she said.
Interrogative Engagement“If you had a face-to-face sit-down with all of the people you’ve posted about, how many
of THOSE would you do again?”
In this quote I believe the author is once again targeting the soft-minded audience
members, as many individuals who have no problem with what they’ve posted WOULD do it
again. Instances like this are the foundation of genocide. We start with sarcastic comments,
jokes, stereotypes, and insensitive mascots. These things then become generally accepted, which
leads individuals to become comfortable with the idea of racism. Once we have adopted this
comfort, then comes the idea of (hating those who are not the same as you. Xenophobe?). As
each level of the “genocide pyramid” becomes normal, we get closer to what occurred in Nazi
Germany. What he is doing in this instance is trying to draw similar ties between Sacco and the
reader. By doing this he tries to incite the idea “what if this was you?”. His point being many
individuals experience this, and that she is just getting “unfair” treatment.
BP #3 (Counter Argument)
One could argue that he implied he may perhaps be bias towards her situation due to the
issue that surfaced for Biddle after his gamergate comments. He aforementioned to her before
they met who he was, and what he wanted to do. Clearly by saying that “he owes it to her” to get
to know her personally, I immediately assume she is going to have an agenda and exhibit
specific behavior. Perhaps if she didn’t know the conditions of the meeting, she may have
behaved differently. The truth is simply that she got caught being racially ignorant, not that she
sincerely felt that way without receiving backlash. One may argue that we all make mistakes, but
for a PR executive to make such a foolish and ignorant comment is not excusable. That’s the
equivalent to an aerospace engineer not knowing to light gas on fire (Exactly what you should
NOT do.) Unfortunately, only the weak minded audience would not be able to deduce the fact
this is a biased, sugar coated article attempting to abolish any type of accountability. Instances
like this tend to develop into far worse situations when we incubate and condone behavior like
this. I also believe that it would have been more substantial if someone of color, or someone who
is affected by AIDS (Indirectly or Directly), was the one who engaged in the meeting. I believe
that both of them being Caucasian is a significant factor in why he feels sorry for her. It’s very
easy to be a white male and misinterpret the truth, as we have been conditioned by our “white
privilege” from previous millenniums.
Conclusion
Conclusively, I believe the strategies the Biddle utilized to be the superior between the
two articles, and that soft-minded audience members and readers will be persuaded relatively
easily. His ability to ignore the facts and talk about the actual issue were deliberate and subtle, as
he only emphasized positive things about her, and not truthful things. Had he discussed why she
hadn’t been involved in any charities for aids, donating time or money, or even mentioned an
action (NOT WORDS) that showed she was sincere, Sacco’s image in the article would have
been destroyed further than it already was.
Isabella Orso-Nevarez
Professor Chelsea Kerford
RWS 280-03
February 25, 2019
Rough Draft
Biddle’s and Srinivas’s both share the same main argument, Justine Sacco’s tweet was
meant to be sarcastic and was blown out of proportion. The way they both address their
arguement to a common audience was slightly different. Biddle’s argument was focused solely
on personal experience and from his first hand interaction with Sacco. Srinivas’s argument was
focused on previous cases of this happening as well as correlating it to Binyavanga Wainaina’s
book “How To Write About Africa”. (add more about specific rhetorical strategies)
Even though I think both articles are persuasive I believe that Srinivas’s argument is
more persuasive. Exemplification: She uses a handful of examples and ties in Wainaina’s book
into her argument. Metadiscourse: She uses “we” multiple times and strong, aggressive wording.
(insert most relevant)
However Biddle is at a great advantage and his arguement has something that Srinivas’s
article will never posses, personal involvement and liability. Pathos: What can be more credible
than the words of Sacco being told directly from a nightly outing that Biddle experience
exclusively. Biddle vividly relives the feelings he experienced during and after he decided to
retweet Sacco.
– Ignore the stuff in parenthesis, these are side notes for the stuff I need to further develop in my
essay.
– Also, this is not at all elaborated or structured the way it needs to be, it is more of an “outline”.
– Main concern: My argument is clear and the examples are using are precise. I don’t want to be
confusing or “all over the place” with my writing.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment