REVIEW A PEER WORK I listed below after the description of the assignment For this discussion board, you have two steps to complete. The first is to upload your rhetorical analysis draft (copy and p

REVIEW A PEER WORK I listed below after the description of the assignment 

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). It is your responsibility to make sure that everyone in your group receives a peer review. Remember to use the template for your draft: Rhetorical Analysis Template.docx

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.

research paper focuses on marketing and emotional techniques that Dove has used over the past couple of years to boost revenue, likeability, and exposure. She argues that using strategies that provoke emotions works extremely efficiently. This is done through careful consideration and many strategic applications to keep the audience involved in the study. 

Below is the paper to be reviewed !!!

Alvarez’s does a great job of introducing Dove’s “Campaign for Real Beauty" to allow the audience to grasp the overall purpose of the paper before proceeding to acknowledge the impacts the advertisement had on society and Dove. Alvarez discusses the significant influence the advertisement had and how the company attempted to redefine beauty thorough surveys conducted by various media outlets. The first and second paragraphs give lots of needed background information about the campaign ad in regard to marketing strategies. Alvarez states that through an IRB-approved study she was able to establish the research question, “how do the rhetorical elements surrounding Dove’s commercials and social media play a role in creating the company’s successful campaign?”. This clear emphasis on the question being answered is an efficient technique that engages the audience. Although the audience is not explicitly stated, the reader can infer that this paper is for individuals, and corporations, who are interested in rhetorical strategies in company branding and marketing. However, clearly stating to whom the research paper is addressed can strengthen the paper. In the third paragraph, common ground was established by linking Dove’s lengthy campaign to the research question at hand. Common ground is used to prepare the intended audience for the research. At the end of the third paragraph, and the entirety of the fourth, the writer goes into greater detail about the scientific steps that were taken and efficiently provides a map for the argument. Alvarez's introduction used pathos and ethos to set up the paper’s credibility and engage the audience with the topic in mind. 

The literature review section clearly focuses on all the different sorts of media coverages that Dove has used to build up their brand and increase sales over the years. Alvarez successfully describes the outlets used to build rapport with consumers and build an identity. The three media outlets the paper addresses are television advertising, social media, and discourse community. By using reputable sources and statistics, Alvarez builds up credibility and the audience takes the research much more seriously. The section starts off by using history as a testament to the credibility that television brings when it comes to marketing. The literature review section starts off strong by honing into the impact television advertising has had on consumers and producers. Alvarez references the idea that positive attitudes toward television ads correlate to consumer loyalty as she properly cites this from “Belch, Lutz, and Mackenzie (1896)” which adds validity to her argument since others agree. The researcher dives deeper into the impact of broadcasting advertisements on television and how likeability directly affects the company’s financial success. By referencing Rimoldi (2008), Alvarez creates ethos about the nation that “associations with the brand may develop, thereby promoting consumer loyalty”. The paper then adds examples of Dove’s visual advertisement labeled “Evolution” to showcase a case when Dove successfully utilized an ad. The example highlights how conversation was provoked about beauty standards around the world due to the impactful video. Alvarez even says that Dove’s video brought awareness to greater societal issues. Company sales significantly “increased from $2.5 billion to well over $4 billion” this astronomical increment showcases the power of media and strengthens Alvarez’s argument. Alvarez then talks about the second source of media that connects potential buyers to companies is social media. She states that in today’s day and age social media "plays a huge role in the success of a company”. The paper highlights the notion that social media has transformed, and that the platform went from strictly technological savvy individuals to everyone through strategically placed quotes that relate to the information discussed. Alvarez describes social media as an essential means of communication in today's business world. Furthermore, she continues using credible sources such as “Haenlein and Kaplan (2010)” to assert that social networking applications have become the primary sources of information for potential buyers. Social media has become the backbone of brand marketing. The paper further progresses the argument that social media holds immense weight in consumer actions by talking about how Dove’s Instagram focuses on engagement, hashtags, and post to further sales and express their message without having to run it by networking. The use of an example allows other companies to grasp the extent to which social media can affect their brands image, sales, and overall popularity worldwide. Also, throughout the research paper Alvarez continuously makes effortless transitions that prepare the reader for the next section. This allows the intended audience to stay on track and properly digest the information provided. The last section relating to media is much more summarized and Alvarez paraphrases key concepts that are necessary for a smooth reading. She provides an explanation for “discourse community” are essentially a group of “like-minded individuals that share common interests and goals have the potential to enable meaningful interactions”. This type of community is pivotal for a brand to grow as people talk about it, thus giving the brand coverage. Dove is a quintessential example of a growing discourse community as they engage their audiences' using hashtags and allowing open discussion in the comment section. Current research discoveries by Bazerman and Swales highlight the importance of “rhetorical aspects in a community [since they] affect activity levels” (Bazerman, 2004). Platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram, and X all allow for a brand to build a community that interacts with posts using pathos, logos, and ethos. Alvarez seamlessly transitions to the methods conducted by ending the literature review section with a question about social media's involvement in a successful campaign. The decision to ask a question engages the audience and allows for an answer to be provided later in the paper. There was a little bit of repetitive concepts throughout this section, but overall Alvarez did a great job by planting seeds for further discussion and organizing concepts effectively. The literature review section establishes a foundation of previously conducted research results from credible sources. 

The methods section strategies focused on how data was colllected, the procedure for analyzing the data, and findings. This section immediately sheds light back to the research question at hand which is to understand how different forms of rhetorical strategies, such as ethos and pathos, influenced Dove’s advertisements. Alvarez then goes on to describe the method in which data collection was obtained, which is “thorough analysis of three of the company’s commercials and 160 social media posts”. She then states that word choices and rhetorical strategies were analyzed to better understand Dove’s campaign strategies. Both data collection technique and data analysis were clearly distinguished in a straightforward way. She provided a logical approach to the study which is easily comprehended. A major problem which Alvarez faced when conducting the study was bias. She acknowledges that choosing the commercials could've led to bias, however she combated this problem by choosing the most recent ads instead; that way she would have played no role in the choosing of videos. What was examined was the participants' reaction to ethos and pathos of the themes in the commercials. Participants were asked about their background to avoid any skewed results. The decision to be specific about what type of survey was used, who exactly was surveyed, and the number of participants that responded is crucial information that needed to be addressed. A big issue with Alvare’s study is that she did not meet her intended participation rate of 20, and instead only got 15 responses which makes the study biased. Alvarez decided to include this section to ensure the audience understands that there were obstacles faced during the study, but she did her best to overcome them. The methods section is carefully articulated to avoid any naysayers; however, I would've advised Alvarez to further discuss how exactly the methods adhered to the field. Overall, this section was very well written as it addressed all the components of the study.  

The result and discussion section addresses the study's aftermath and the results discovered. This section was the most well-rounded part of the study since Alvarez connected all the previous sections into one. The writer does a great job in the buildup of the study and equally delivers in the results section. Alavarez immediately restates the research’s purpose and provided an ample amount of context before presenting the results. The methods used to obtain the results were also reiterated to ensure that the audience is on the same page. This is seen when she says she’s chosen “three commercials to evaluate and base” the survey on. Connecting the answers to the research significantly positively affects how this section is read. Alvarez got straight to the point and properly avoided any extra details that seemed unnecessary. The writer then presented exactly what was shown to the participants, in order, and analyzed the reactions. Another thing that is greatly appreciated is putting the links to the videos used in the works cited page so that the readers can also look at it and understand how conclusions were drawn. Alvarez's decision to put what a couple of the participants said after watching the commercial is very important to understand how the results were derived. She then goes on to connect her research back to Belch, Lutz, and Mackenzie’s theory of attitude towards commercials. This gives credibility to her research as her conclusions align with a distinguished theory. The statistics of the study were put in visual format to condense the work and allow the reader to comprehend the results. The audience can better understand Alvarez’s conclusion due to the evidence provided by the data. Key findings were discussed towards the end of the section as Alvarez concludes that “companies must make it a priority to keep up with their social media accounts and publish great content”. The inference is very credible due to the prior evidence provided. When describing the research. Alvarez makes sure to use past tense which is the proper tense in that case. However, when making inferences and discussing how the results can affect marketing, she uses present tense. This distinction is crucial, not just grammatically, but also to distinguish between the research and the takeaways. 

Alvarez concludes her study by giving an “overall” statement about how she personally felt about the entirety of the study. This makes the reader get a better understanding of the author's belief in their study. The introduction was rediscussed to provide an overall map of how the study was conducted and why the researcher took interest in it. The main conclusions made were restated and condensed as an overview for the audience. Alavre talks about how the low number of survey responses and the variability in age of participants should be rectified to gain more accurate results. This acknowledgment makes the audience comprehend the length of which the study was conducted and how trustworthy the paper is. Admitting flaws makes the reader commend Alvarez for her work and allows for future experiments to be conducted better since she finds solutions to both those issues. She ends the section by addressing the general implication of the study in a broader context. Dove is doing a good job making a stance but there are still some people who aren't motivated enough to join the movement. All the sources were properly cited in MLA format and all the links worked perfectly. This is a sign of a complete and exemplary research paper. 

Alvarez’s paper is an exceptional example of how a scientific study should be conducted. The diction used allows the audience to gracefully follow through the passages. The writer does a great job in engaging the audience using questions, prior experiments, and friendly language. Overall, I believe that this scientific study was written with marvelous prowess and consideration.