Author of Draft: Mohammed Adhban [Subtract 187 from word count]

Reviewer: Michael Brockman

**Review Based Upon Draft Downloaded @ 12:17pm, January 27th, 2015**
This document is a peer review of author Mohammed Adhbans rhetorical
analysis essay regarding Senator Ted Cruzs op-ed article in The Wall Street
Journal. Note that the title of the article being analyzed is not included in
Adhbans analysis I would recommend that this be added for clarification.
1. Does the author thoroughly discuss each element listed in the assignment
prompt? Does the essay go into depth, discussing not just what choices
were made but why? If not, what is missing and where can improvements
be made, specifically?
Throughout the document, author Mohammed Adhban successfully addresses
eight of the nine required elements presented in the essay prompt. The
majority of the time, Adhban clearly structures each paragraph by beginning
with a topic sentence, which is followed by a quote, and then ends with a
section of analysis. The single element that Adhban appears to have overlooked
was the persona of the op-ed that he analyzed. He appears to have implied
that the tone of the article is serious when discussing the medium in which the
op-ed was published (par. 2) and the urgent nature of the publication (par. 3),
but has not included an explanation of punctuation, word choice, POV, or
sentence structure. A viable location for such discussion would be after the
current second paragraph. Furthermore, the analysis & background sections of
paragraph 4 could be added to, possibly by adding a quotation explaining what
the Simple Flat Tax that Cruz is proposing actually is. Doing so would provide
clarification to the reader, and help to better illustrate what exactly Cruz is
adding to the rhetorical conversation, since that is the topic of this paragraph.
As will be discussed in the next section, some paragraphs would benefit from
the addition of quotations, in order to provide further depth.
2. Does the essay thoroughly use quotes throughout to support the claims
made? Are these quotes analyzed afterward, or just dropped in without
context?
Quotes are utilized as supporting evidence throughout the essay in all
paragraphs except for paragraphs 2, 3, 8, and 9. These quotations have a leadin sentence, and do not seem to appear out of nowhere. An excellent

incorporation of quotational evidence can be found in paragraph 5, where the

quotation fits naturally into Adhbans stream of thought. [Intentionally not
pasted here due to length.] I would recommend, however, that Adhban add
quotes to the paragraphs that are missing them in order to make his arguments
stronger. In paragraph 2, he could add a quote that supports his claim that
The Wall Street Journal is a right-leaning publication or, alternatively, to
support his claims that the primary audience are those who have an influence
over voters and that the secondary audience are those who are already
voting for Mr. Cruz. (Adhban, par. 2) Another instance where a quotation
would be particularly useful is in paragraph 3 of the document, where Adhban
discusses the importance of the documents date of publication. A quote that
illustrates Cruzs somewhat urgent attempts to appeal to voters would help
convey Adhbans claim that Cruzs document needed to be published at the
time it was. Despite an absence of quotes in certain paragraphs, Adhbans
arguments are logically structured and have a natural flow. With the
appropriate supplementation of quotations, these arguments can be made even
stronger.
3. Is the essay well organized? Does each paragraph discuss one topic,
introduced by a topic sentence? Is there a clear paragraph structure, and
transitions between the paragraphs? How would you recommend outlining
this essay?
In terms of organization of topics from start to finish, the essay flows well,
with each paragraph (for the most part) addressing one issue. Transitions
between each paragraph, specifically in the beginning quarter and latter
quarter of the document, could be improved. In order to improve the flow, I
would recommend tweaking the last sentence of one paragraph to hint at the
content of the next paragraph. For example, Adhban ends paragraph 4 with the
following sentence: This is also clear by how Mr. Cruz details his plan as
different and original. He could mention that Cruz also emphasizes that his
plan is better, to help transition into the topic of the next paragraph.
In reading Adhbans essay, I noted that paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 all addressed the
three rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, pathos). Currently, each of these
paragraphs touch on a combination of the three appeals, but I would
recommend that the content of the three paragraphs be rearranged so that
each paragraph speaks to one of the three appeals. Making this change would
help to improve the organization of the essay and make it easier for the reader
to follow Adhbans arguments. Also note that the same quote is used in

paragraph 5 as in paragraph 7: according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation,

[his] tax plan. By reordering the structure of these three paragraphs, Adhban
would also be able to combine the separate analyses of this same quote into a
single paragraph.
4. How is the writing style of the essay itself? Is the voice confident and
clear? Are there specific moments where the voice becomes too casual, or
too awkward? Are there any grammatical issues the author needs to be
aware of? You arent expected to copyedit the essaythats the authors
jobbut if you see a mistake made several times, please point it out.
Throughout the piece, Adhban uses a formal, sophisticated tone, namely by
utilizing complex (yet appropriate) sentence structures and an expansive
vocabulary. My favorite word that was used, seminal, appears in the opening
sentence of paragraph 3: This is a seminal time for most candidates.
(Adhban, par. 3). Additionally, Adhban addresses the articles author as Mr.
Cruz, as opposed to simply Cruz, which adds yet another layer of formality
to the document. Adhbans writing shows that he is confident in his arguments
and knowledgeable in terms of the subject matter he is writing about. There
are no instances where the voice becomes too informal; however, there are a
few places were it appears that sentences may be missing words. For instance,
in the portion of the second sentence of paragraph 3 following the semicolon,
it appears that there are a few words missing: the former need to broadcast
their views on central campaign issues such as taxation now in order to turn
likely voters in their favor. (Adhban, par. 3) Overall, though, there are no
major errors in the document that hinder the readers. Furthermore, the final
sentence in the first paragraph, although grammatically correct, could either
be split, reorganized, or shortened to improve its flow, as it is rather choppy in
its current state. One overarching grammatical note: the titles of magazines
should be italicized, such as The New York Times or The Huffington Post as
per MLA conventions. (See the following Purdue OWL resource:
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/07/)
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Adhban has a strong, well-organized rhetorical analysis essay that could be
significantly improved as a result of some minor reorganization, the addition of
a section discussing persona, and a few grammatical adjustments. Best of
luck on completing your final draft. I will have a printed copy of your essay
with comments for you in class on Thursday.