Peer Review of Tajammal Hill’s Paper (Monday’s Class 10/26):

1) What is the issue your partner’s artifacts discuss?

A: The issue that Tajammal’s artifacts discuss in his essay is whether finance is still a
useful and relevant degree to obtain.

2) Give a one sentence summary of each of your partner’s artifacts.

A: Tajammal’s paper does not have a text-based source yet (N/A). However, to
summarize his second artifact, the video is about a man named David Ramsey who discusses his
personal experiences and opinions about obtaining an undergraduate degree in Finance. David
Ramsey states the wide variety of opportunities that possessing an undergraduate degree in
Finance has provided for him.

3) Highlight (or otherwise identify) each of the following rhetorical devices you see in your
partner’s paper: genre conventions, context, author, audience, purpose, rhetorical appeals,
exigence, medium, constraints, metaphorical language, active and passive voice, use of visuals,
organization, structure, tone, and formality.
A: The rhetorical devices that I am able to identify in the essay are audience, rhetorical
appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), metaphorical language, tone, and formality. Tajammal mainly
goes in depth with ethos, pathos, and logos (rhetorical devices). He slightly mentions the other
devices listed above, but needs more explanation and a further analysis of them.

4) Does the conclusion act as a jumping off point/recontextualization, or does it simply repeat
information from earlier in the paper?
A: Tajammal’s essay does not have a conclusion written yet (N/A).

5) What gives your partner’s paper structure? (section breaks, paragraph flow, etc.)
A: Tajammal’s paper is structured very well. The paragraphs flow nicely together, and he
separates new points and ideas being made into new paragraphs. I especially like how
Tajammal was able to continue each paragraph with a solid transition from the last point made
in the prior paragraph.

6) Give three suggestions for making your partner’s paper even stronger than it already is.
A: 1. Check for grammar mistakes there were a couple scattered throughout the paper.
2. Be more specific as to which rhetorical devices you are analyzing. Don’t just discuss
the difference between the sources, but also discuss how the specific devices differ (ex: how
does purpose, audience, medium, etc. differ?). Although there are slight mentions of the
devices, try to get further in depth and explain the differences.
3. Find a text-based source, so that you can easily identify the differences in the use
of the rhetorical devices amongst the two artifacts. The project mainly wants you to focus on
that more than the actual issue itself.

Overall, this is a good paper and you did a great job. Just a few small things to fix such as
grammar. Also, once you insert a conclusion and your first source, the essay will be even better!