ENG 106 Week 2 Peer Review Worksheet description Argument
Peer Review Worksheet description Argument
Part of your responsibility as a pupil in this course is to give quality feedback to your peers that will help them to ameliorate their jotting chops. This worksheet will help you in furnishing that feedback. To punctuate the textbook and type over the information in the boxes on this worksheet, twice- click on the first word. Name of the draft’s author Larissa Ford. Name of the peer critic Evelyn Perez- Benitez
Reviewer
After reading through the draft one time, write a summary( 3- 5 rulings) of the paper that includes your assessment of how well the essay meets the assignment conditions as specified in the syllabus and the rubric. I suppose that overall the essay met the conditions of the assignment. There are some effects that the author should fix like their spelling and alphabet, but the communication is clear and the author handed sufficient substantiation to justify their argument. The author also needs to make their station clear in the morning of their essay to avoid any confusion with the followership. After a alternate, near reading of the draft, answer each of the following questions.
ENG 106 Week 2 Peer Review Worksheet Description Argument
Positive answers will give you specific rudiments of the draft to praise; negative answers will indicate areas in need of enhancement and modification. Please be sure to indicate at least three positive aspects of the draft and at least three areas for enhancement in reply to the questions at the bottom of this worksheet. Description Argument Content and Ideas how effectively does the thesis statement identify the main points that the pen would like to make in this description argument? The thesis statement does a great job of relating the main points the author makes in their description argument.
How successfully does the argument focus on explaining and justifying a specific description?
The essay does a good job on fastening and explaining the argument, but I wish the description of the word” unethical” was a little bit more. If the pen uses resemblance arguments, how successfully were they used? The author was effective in using resemblance argument because they were suitable to explain why it was unethical for rich people to be in favor of organ donation when organ donation meant everything that a rich person was supposed to be against.
ENG 106 Week 2 Peer Review Worksheet description Argument
How persuasively is substantiation used to justify ideas and enrich the essay?
The substantiation was conclusive to justify the ideas but I wish the author would have explained the substantiation a little bit more just to enhance their argument. Overall, it was good.
How effectively does the essay incorporate supporting strategies similar as the criteria match pattern described?
The essay does a great job at incorporating supporting strategies similar as the criteria pattern described.
Organization
How effectively does the preface engage the anthology while furnishing an overview of
the paper? In the morning of the preface the author did a great job at engaging the anthology and furnishing a good background to the story. still, I got confused when the author introduced the thesis because it was contradict the rest of the preamble. Organ deals in the United States would be unethical because they would increase crime, beget unintentional procedures, and go to undeserving campaigners. How effectively do the paragraphs develop the content judgment and advance the essay’s ideas?
ENG 106 Week 2 Peer Review Worksheet description Argument
The author does a good job at to developing content rulings that advance the essay’s ideas. The author does need to work on being a little bit more specific but nothing too drastic. How effectively does the conclusion give a strong, satisfying ending, not a bare summary of the essay? The conclusion summarizes the author’s main points nicely and does a good job at belting up the textbook. still. I suppose the author just needs to polish their work by fixing alphabet and spelling miscalculations.
Format
How nearly does the paper follow APA formatting style? Is it double- spaced in 12 pt. Times New Roman fountain? Does it have 1″ perimeters? Does it use heads( runner figures using applicable title function)? Does it have a proper title( with pupil’s name, date, course, and educator’s name)? Yes No Good job!
Are all information, citations, and espoused ideas cited in parenthetical APA format?
Yes No Not all your references are presumably cited some do not have the proper hiatuses.
Are all sources listed on the references runner in APA format? Yes No Good job.
ENG 106 Week 2 Peer Review Worksheet description Argument
Is the needed minimum number of sources listed?
Yes No I believe you demanded a aggregate of five sources and you only listed four.
Language Use and Style
Are the voice and tone of the essay effective in characterizing ideas and creating the applicable mood? If “ No, ” please give exemplifications of ineffective or unhappy voice and tone. Yes No The tone was effective and harmonious throughout the essay. How effectively does the paper incorporate a variety of judgment structures that strengthen the ideas, produce vitality, and avoid choppiness in the jotting? Yes No I noticed the author used a variety of rulings that helped strengthen their essay. Great job! How would you assess the pen’s diction( i.e., word choice)? Does the pen use active verbs, concrete nouns, and precise words? Yes No I suppose the authors word choice was effective and well allowed out.
Alphabet and Mechanics
Does the pen use proper alphabet, punctuation, and spelling? If “ No, ” please give exemplifications of crimes in need of correction. Yes No You are missing some commas in some rulings and occasionally you repeat words, but it’s not too bad. Is the writing clear and scrutable throughout the draft? If “ No, ” please give exemplifications in need of enhancement. Yes No For the utmost part, the jotting was clear.
ENG 106 Week 2 Peer Review Worksheet description Argument
Three effects that I liked about your draft are
1. I liked your title. I allowed it was veritably intriguing and surely got my attention. I liked how it was unique and not commodity I ever really read ahead in class or outside of class. Great work!
2.” The average heart transplant cost and the average copay is 276,480, are we not formerly buying organs( National Foundation for Transplants, 2019)?” I really enjoyed this statement because it made me suppose. As a person who would be against organ selling, the statement made me realize that perhaps we’re formerly buying organs but in a way that benefits the government rather of ourselves. I suppose you wrote this judgment veritably well and it was veritably effective.
3. I like the association of the essay. The author made sure to separate their paragraphs and keep information applicable to each paragraph. This made the textbook inflow nicely. Good job.
Three effects that could be bettered are
- Try not to use alternate person POV in your essay. From what I know of, all essays should be written in third person POV unless stated else. therefore, avoid using words similar as” you” in your preamble.
- Try to fix your preface because in the beginning you made it feel as though that you were going to argue in favor of organ selling. You gave me all these data about organ donations and transplant, and that organ selling could be the result to that but also you thesis fully went against the idea of organ trafficking. Make your station clear, or your followership will be confused.
- Try to fix your citings because you do not need to add the title of the composition you are representing too when you have the author and the time.
