Rhetorical Analysis Peer Critique: Project #1

Writer’s full name ______

Critiquer’s full name ______

  1. Critiquer: what are your immediate reactions and thoughts after reading the paper? What, right off the bat, do you like?
  2. How would you rate the introductory paragraph for the rhetorical analysis? Does it:
  3. Make clear what film is being analyzed? ______
  4. Make clear that what follows is an objective analysis of the argument being made in the film? ______
  5. Other thoughts about the intro?
  1. Issue
  2. Has the writer clearly discussed the film’s issue? What is that issue? (What is being argued about?)
  3. What kind of issue is it? Recall these different types from your reading in Call to Write.
  1. Thesis
  2. Does the writer clearly identify the film’s thesis clear? State it here: “The filmmaker’s primary claim, according to this writer, is that ______

______.” [Note: this must be complete and coherent sentence.]
If you see any problems with the writer’s statement of the film’s thesis, please comment:

  1. Rhetorical Situation
  2. Has the writer clearly discussed the argument’s rhetorical situation? Why was the film made, when was it made, who made it, what was the “call to write”? What was the film’s context? Who’s arguing and why?
  3. Is there more that you feel you need to know about the circumstances under which the film was made? Comment:
  4. Rhetorical Stance
  5. Has the writer clearly addressed the filmmaker’s rhetorical stance? That is, does the writer discuss the film’s approach, attitude, tone, ethos? If so, how?
  6. Proof
  7. Logos
  8. Has the writer clearly addressed any logical proof in the film, such as statistics, data, facts, scientific evidence, reasons, principles? (The rhetorical analysis should mention at least a few SPECIFIC example of logical reasoning or facts presented in the film, if there are any to mention.) Discuss:
  9. Pathos
  10. Does the writer clearly address any appeals to emotion made in the film? If so, what specific emotions, and how are they being appealed to? (Are specific details or scenes in the film described to back up whatever the writer is saying about the filmmaker’s use of pathos?) Discuss:
  11. Ethos
  12. Has the writer clearly examined the filmmaker’s credentials, background, character? Does the filmmaker ever appeal directly to his or her own credibility as experts? Discuss:
  13. Acknowledgement and Refutation of Opposing Views
  14. Does the writer of this rhetorical analysis examine how/if the filmmaker has provided a chance for “the other side” to talk?
  15. If so, does the writer make clear what the other side’s views actually are, and possibly why they hold those views?
  16. Organization
  17. Does the rhetorical analysis have a clear beginning, middle, and ending?
  18. How would you rate its paragraphs?
  19. Is each one sufficiently developed (plenty of detail, discussion)? An average paragraph is about 4-8 sentences. It’s ok of course to write paragraphs shorter or longer than that, but if there paragraphs are ALL much shorter or longer than that, then there is likely a problem .
  20. Is each one focused around a clear specific topic? Or is the writer mixing different topics in each paragraph in a confusing way?
  21. Does each one connect to the next through helpful explicit or implicit transitions? Cites some examples of transitions, if there are any, or otherwise discuss any problems with the writer:
  22. Is the rhetorical analysis sufficiently objective? Remember that this assignment doesn’t ask you to EVALUATE or JUDGE the film’s argument, but rather to impartially examine its parts and how they work. Comment:
  23. As mentioned in class, it is ok if, near the end of these analyses, you do comment briefly on how effective the film’s argument finally is. Does the writer before you offer any short assessment of the film’s effectiveness as an argument?
  24. Other comments or questions? Thank you for your help!

1