1. The title of the draft is descriptive, however it can be be improved by using the method that the Anteater’s Guide to Writing and Rhetoric shows us. The first part of the title can be more creative, while the second part can be more descriptive so that the readers know what the paper is about. The draft has the descriptive part, but can use the creative aspect as well. 2. The introduction did a very good job at grabbing my attention, because it clearly stated and described the problem and convinced me that this is a big issue in Beijing. The writer had good use of logos, because she included cited many important facts. The writer can improve the use of pathos by providing an emotional invoking example or an emotional event in order for the audience to appeal to their emotions.
3. The thesis statement in the introduction clearly lays out a brief summary of what the problem is and why we should care about it. The thesis could be made more specific by including why this problem came about by using something along the line of “due to the failure of.” 4. The history section of the draft does clarify why this problem is so urgent by including a graph, examples and adding many statistics. The first paragraph of the history section does a good job at describing a variety of different causes of the problem, which continues throughout this section.
5. The draft provides current examples, such as the stench that has been released in 2010 due to one of the largest landfills. This example was effective, because it demonstrated how it is effecting the residents of Beijing. More recent examples could be added to make to demonstrate the urgency of this problem.
6. The draft does a good job summarizing the debates, perspectives and arguments, but they can all use more analysis and evaluation. Also, the writer of the draft could make her informed opinion on which method is most credible, because it was not very clear which one she thought would be most helpful.
7. The draft does include two pieces of graphic evidence that worked very effectively in the draft. There was a variation between the two, with one being a table that showed an important correlation and the other being a graph that illustrated toxic emissions. 8. All of the multi- modal elements used in this draft worked very well in the paper and supported the argument. They demonstrated what the writer was trying to illustrate to the reader as well as demonstrate to the reader why this is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently. 9. The graphics do not include a caption that cites where they came from. Both table one and graph one needs a caption. However, the writer did a good job at describing as well as analyzing and evaluating the graphics in order to prove why they were effective to this argument. 10. The most rhetorically effective graphic that the writer uses in my opinion is the table one. Before inserting the table, the writer summarized a lot of the data given and by adding this table, it gave a clear illustration to the reader of why this waste is a problem. Since the draft is focused on waste, it demonstrated the high increase in MSW from 2000 to 2010. It built the writer’s ethos.
11. The writer did make good choices about when to quote and when to paraphrase her sources. The writer did not include a lot of quotes, only when there was something important a person
said or a list that was made. The quotes were essential to her argument and were well incorporated.
12. All of the information from sources are properly cited in MLA format, included paraphrases, summaries and images.
13. The writer can make some corrections to her sources by clearly introducing them so that the reader knows who said the information in order to build her ethos. Some of the integrated information had commentary, but not all which could be easily fixed in order for the reader to understand why that piece of information was relevant.
14. The writer did a great job using...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document