WRT 120

Dr. Cooke

Peer-editing Workshop: Rhetorical Analysis

Author: Nicole Appel

Editor: Elise Jackson

Note to Author: What problems or uncertainties do you see in your working draft? Ask your
readers about particular passages in the draft so that you can get specific feedback.
It was honestly very good! I do not see any problems, possibly grammatical
concerning run on sentences.

How does the author contextualize the specific debate, discussion, or controversy? How do they
touch on terms such as motivation, kairos, and exigency?
I do see this. (Highlighted in the paper) The author of this piece uses these.

Does the authors thesis use the language argument is (in)effective? Based solely on the
authors thesis, please identify the topic, opinion and three specific points their argument hinges
on.
Yes: . Using her personal research, she effectively uses logos and Kairos to
make her readers believe her argument. She begins her argument by discussing the
research and well known corporations input on the matter then to the health concerns of
using electronic cigarettes. She ends her article talking about the companies selling
them.

The use of logos includes, comparing e-cigarettes with a nicotine patch. It

showed low quit rates and virtually no difference: 7% of nicotine e-cigarette users and
6% of nicotine patch users quit. Ling also expresses her use of Kairos throughout her
argument, which is appealing to the timeliness of the matter. In today's world, with
smoking being a huge issue and e-cigarettes use being at the highest it's ever been, the
timing of this article came at a good time.

Does the authors first body paragraph summarize the main point(s) of the article?
Yes.

How does the article or speech frame the issue(s) (substantiation, evaluation, and/or policy? Is
the authors interpretation accurate, why or why not?
Yes, there are accurate evaluations present in this piece. They are also accurate.

Evaluate the authors analysis of the articles rhetorical stance. Does the author identify and
interpret the coordination of ethos, pathos, and logos accurately?
Yes, that is done properly in this piece.

Evaluate the authors analysis of the articles rhetorical stance. Does the author identify and
interpret the coordination of ethos, pathos, and logos accurately?
Yes.

Does the author identify and evaluate the different parts of the argument (claim, evidence,
enabling assumptions)?
Yes.

Does the author begin their conclusion by restating their thesis (differently than in the intro)?
Does the author address the articles overall effectiveness in convincing others? Why or why
not?
It is unclear but it ended on a good note.

Does the author address the articles overall effectiveness in clarifying reasonable differences?
Yes and no.