my name is Esteban tankou the instructions for assignment are below please don’t to message me if you need certain documents For this discussion board, you have two steps to complete. The first

my name is Esteban tankou

the instructions for assignment are below please don’t  to message me if you need certain documents 

For this discussion board, you have two steps to complete. The first is to upload your rhetorical analysis draft (copy and paste into the body of the discussion board) by Friday, March 1st, at 11:59 PM. Remember, you still need to submit an additional copy of your draft for instructor feedback (see the Week 7 Checklist of Steps for additional instructions).

For the second step, please post a reply (value-added comment) to one of your peer's submission in your group by Monday, March 4th, at 11:59 PM. To get credit on this assignment, you must post both your own completed draft analyzing all sections of Alvarez's paper, and your peer review response. Like the summary peer review, the workshop involves a set of assignment specific questions (below): 

In your value-added comment, please answer each section as thoroughly as possible: 

The purpose of this peer review is to help you identify your partner’s thesis and structure of their main argument including supporting points and key terms. Identifying the key information before your partner’s draft of the rhetorical analysis helps you 1) understand the article better 2) avoid writing a sequential descriptive summary 3) avoid over quoting from the original text. You can use this worksheet as a model to help you revise. 

To get in the practice of providing an audience useful information, as you write this peer review, think about the goals of the assignment and how to best articulate the things that you see in your partner’s paper as well as your own. 

As before, begin your review with an address to the writer.

Dear [Writer],

Paper Introduction: Main Argument

Locate the writer’s introduction to the article, the purpose of rhetorical analysis, and the aim of the paper (to prove that the article is rhetorically effective or not). Describe to the writer what they have accomplished in their introduction. Does the analysis have a main idea or thesis? Paraphrase the sentence in which this is articulated. If it not there, offer a helpful suggestion to your partner.

Section Analysis: Introduction

Does the writer name and analyze specific rhetorical strategies related to their thesis? What things has the writer chosen to analyze? How does their analysis work? Restate these elements to the writer. If this component is not present, call attention to way that the analysis might be improved.

Support

Does the writer provide sufficient evidence to support his/her argument? What sort of evidence is used? Does the analysis include an overview of the kind of evidence present in the essay? Restate the evidence you see present in the analysis to the writer. If not enough evidence is offered, explain and offer suggestions as to how to improve this portion of the essay.

Repeat Section Analysis for Literature Review, Methods, and Findings.

Paper Conclusion

Examine the analytical checklist for the strategies for effective conclusions. Does the writer effectively close their paper? Describe their conclusion, and offer suggestions as a way to improve their conclusion.