Peer Review

I chose to make a research recommendation for Joshua Smith after reading his research report. I believed Joshua's report of his abundance of resources to be beyond adequate and there were quite a few things I liked, particularly his consideration and integration of credible resources that provided perspectives I would never have on my own. I believe this is where the power of a public argument or any composition comes from so I think he is steering in the right direction. The recommendation I would provide is to perhaps integrate a geopolitical piece regarding fracking (a widely discussed issue in the current election cycle). Whether we like it or not, we are heavily intertwined with the government's practices and the perspectives of future leaders' could be of great interest in an argument like this. Other than that, splendid job.

Outside of our 8 AM section, I reviewed Jack Auslen's Rhetorical Analysis. The brainstorming suggestion I would pose would be to consider the perspectives outside of the government vs. the people argument - perhaps an ulterior country or the intertwinement of major corporations or small businesses (tied to your major) with the NSA's surveillance, or lack thereof. Larger the pool of resources, larger the qualification of the argument. Nonetheless, I believe Jack understands the conventions and content required for the Project 3 assignment and I witnessed his development of ideas as he progressed his rhetorical analysis so I am sure he is in great shape for the remainder of the process.