English 301 Peer Review please you must complete reviewing two drafts that i uploaded about half page peer review for each paper. this is only peer review

English 301 Peer Review please you must complete reviewing two drafts that i uploaded about half page peer review for each paper. this is only peer review to other students paper to improve the paper and where and how can they improve the paper

Peer Evaluation Checklist:

Do they clearly state their main claim and identify their supporting claims in their introduction?
Does each body paragraph have a clear supporting claim?
Does each body paragraph have specific examples from the artifact(s)?
Does each body paragraph have specific analysis of their examples?
Do they make a final point in the end?

Responses to the following questions must be in complete sentences; brief responses or quick bullets will result in 0 credit.

Introduction:

What are the strengths of the introduction?Why?
What needs to be improved?How?Be specific.
What are the strengths of the conclusion?Why?
What needs to be improved?How?Be specific.

Body:

What are the main strengths of the body?Why?Highlight at least one example to help the author understand what and why.
Identify at least three areas, or representative areas, that need to be improved.
Why do these need to be improved?
How specifically can these be improved?

Conclusion:

Formatting:

What are the strengths of the formatting?
Does anything in the formatting need to be improved?How?

Which main three criteria from the Writing Portfolio Rubric do they do well in addressing?Why? Jarred Mac
Elijah Coleman
English 301
The Rhetorical Moves of “TO: Washington State Alumni and the Parents of Our
Students”
It is, without a doubt, problematic when the institution where you are employed is the
center of controversy. It presents a serious dilemma for the leaders involved — and it is critical
to identify the large stakeholders in order to protect the institution that you value dearly. This is
done eloquently in the letter, “To Washington State Alumni and the Parents of Our Students”.
The authors of the letter, made up of various Washington State University faculty, recognized the
importance that the parents, many of whom finance their students’ education at the university,
and the alumni, many of whom pledge funds to the school, remain confident in WSU’s ability to
operate normally in the midst of the turmoil on the WSU campus. Through the consolidation of
ideas through headings, questioning, and appeals to their audience’s ego, I interpret that the
authors of this letter clearly encapsulated their purpose: to keep their stakeholders invested in
their institution.
When writing to make an argument, which is precisely what this letter does, it is
incredibly important to consolidate ideas and to have a comprehensive roadmap of different
points. The authors at the University do just this. The writers begin with a brief introduction,
conceding to the confusion that the reader may have about the situation. They then divided the
letter into a series of headings, such as: “The Sit-In”, “The Strike”, and the “Resolution of the
Strike” (Bennett, et al., 1-3) This allows the reader to jump to certain portions of the letter that
they may have been unsure about in order to preserve time. This technique not only makes it
easier for the reader, but it also showcases the authors’ respect for the time of their readers.
Knowing that their audience would want a piece of writing that is short and to the point, the
authors’ organization of this letter is a strategy which would hopefully allow alumni and parents
to be persuaded easier, and ultimately stay supportive of WSU.
With the extensive media coverage and the second-hand words from students about the
tumultuous events on campus, the authors of the letter knew that the parents and alumni likely
had many questions about the truth regarding the incidents. They achieve these answers through
the use of both rhetorical questioning and hypophera, inserted throughout the writing. For
instance, in the introducing paragraph in the letter, the authors ask questions such as “Has the
university fallen into the hands of drug-using, bomb-setting, spoiled brats?” (Bennett, et al., 1).
These questions serve as a means of empathizing with their audience as well as building blocks
for their arguments. The faculty involved in the writing of this letter understood that the parents
would have many questions; some sensible, and some insensible. By explaining that these
questions will be answered, the authors of this letter have established a concession with their
audiences’ feelings and emotions. The writers continue this trend of questioning in the form of
hypophera used in subheadings. Under the heading “Comments on the Strike”, the writers use a
series of questions to serve as subheadings such as: “How much violence has occurred?”, “Was
the strike over serious matters?”, “Can President Terrell handle the situation at WSU?”
(Bennett, et al., 5-6). The authors of the letter placed these subheadings at the end of their letter
as a means of a Q & A section of the letter, addressing common questions and then answering
them immediately afterwards. Through these questions, the audience feels understood, and is
thus more receptive to the authors request that they retain their support with WSU.
There are several appeals to the intended audience’s ego throughout the writing. The first
arises in the introduction. The authors appeal to the role of parents, writing about the value of a
parents’ listening, understanding, and persuading their children (Bennett, et al., 1). They use this
allusion to appeal to the minds of their readers, suggesting that just as parents care for their
children, the University is doing their best to listen, understand, and persuade its students. In
other words, the authors seem to be evoking that If one truly embodies these parental features,
then it should be easy to understand the University’s methods of dealing with these issues on
campus. The second major appeal to the ego comes in the final portion of the letter, entitled “Our
Appeal”. The authors open this section by writing “The loyalty of alumni to WSU is well
known.” (Bennett, et al., 6). I interpret this statement to not only seek to flatter the WSU alumni,
but also serves to tool of confirmation bias to keep WSU alumni invested in the University. This
is continued later in the same paragraph, where the authors affirm that they are requesting
support from “tough-minded individuals who are not shaken by rumors or petty dissatisfactions”.
Statements such as these can be interpreted with the purpose of persuading alumni and parents to
keep their investments in the school by assuring them that those who remain supportive are
tough-minded people. In a way, the authors are insinuating that those who may pull their
investments in the school are not tough-minded people, but instead, people who are “shaken by
rumors”.
In times of desperation, the best method at hand can be to make an argument masked as a
concession. The authors of the letter repeatedly make strategic rhetorical moves to fulfil their
ultimate purpose of keeping WSU’s welfare intact with the alumni and parent investments.
We’ve seen the role that organization had to play: to preserve their readers’ time and to keep
their attention. The use of frequent questioning allowed readers to feel that their concerns were
heard and understood, and hypophera allowed readers to have important questions answered
quickly and seamlessly. Finally, the appeal to the audience’s ego in the introductory paragraph
as well as the closing paragraph allowed the writers to persuade the readers that staying invested
in the University was the tough-minded thing to do, whilst understanding that WSU was simply
approaching this situation as a parent would: with listening ears and a willingness to understand
the opposing side.
Works Cited
Bennett, Edward M, et al. “TO: Washington State Alumni and the Parents of Our
Students” 1970, pp, 01-06.
Aryn Allen
Elijah Coleman
1/22/2019
During the early 1970s students across campus protested racism in various ways—strikes,
posters, sit-ins, marches, and many others. These students are protesting racism in the United
States as well as the Vietnam War. A student from this time created a flier to encourage students
to protest in peaceful ways rather than violent ways. Roland Nail was the creator of these fliers.
Nail uses underlining, diction and language, as well as emotional appeal in ways to persuade his
readers to not get involved with “violent confrontation” on campus. In this letter he uses
emotional appeal by defining what the protesters are doing as violent. He also underlines many
of these harsh statements towards the marches to emphasize the criminality he is placing on
them. He then signs his name with “I implore you to keep as cool as possible” which is a
statement that renders emotional appeal by implying that those who are marching are not “cool”.
Nail’s definition of violent protests are marching through classrooms on campus to
protest racism. He underlines many of these harsh statements towards the marches to emphasize
the criminality he is placing on them. For example, he underlines “we fight racism in our own
way” speaking on behalf of students who are not marching. By underlining this line he is almost
incriminating those who are choosing to march. He puts them under a microscope. This is the
first underlined sentence, and it is highlighting what the students who are not striking feel. Nail
also under lines “We must not afford the leaders their martyrs.” Again by underlining this
sentence Nail is emphasizing that he feels the students who are leading others to protest are
almost deadly to the other students. Using underlining as a rhetorical device allows the readers
eyes to be drawn to specific moments/words on the letter and catch their attention quickly.
Another rhetorical strategy Nail uses in his letter flier is choice of words. The diction
used in this artifact is used very strategically. In the first paragraph of the letter he describes the
march the students have organized as “violent confrontation”. Marching through classroom
buildings with prior permission is not a violent act but by using the word “violent” Nail is
molding his readers to believe that what these students doing in protest are violent. By doing this
students who are not protesting may, in return, be afraid of those who are protesting. Even
though these acts are distracting to the students in the building they are not violent. In the final
paragraph he states “…our right to study may be infringed…” This sentence makes people who
are marching seem like they don’t care about school. Nail is boosting students who are choosing
not to protest and making it look like they care more about their education/study habits. This
would allow students who are not protesting to feel superior to those who are protesting. One
thing that especially caught my eye is the closing statement at the end before the signature. “I
implore you to keep as cool as possible”. At this time it was slang to say “stay cool”. But this
closing statement puts the word “cool” in a negative connotation. We as readers in the 21st
century do not know who Roland Nail is telling to stay cool. Is it the protestors? Or those who
are not protesting? This statement also bring with it the question of why do we need to stay as
cool as possible? By using this Nail is able to persuade his readers to either worry because they
think that they need to remain calm in a way, or persuade them to think that protesting is the
uncool option. It’s also quite superfluous and petty, signing that on the end of a letter that
criminalizes protestors as violent.
In this letter Nail uses emotional appeal by defining what the protesters are doing as
violent, and the ones who are not marching are fighting in their own peaceful way. Nail uses
emotional appeal throughout the whole letter beginning with a dramatic fear come true. By using
this dramatic thought of Nail’s personal fears come true, the readers are persuaded to feel
worried with Nail. The readers are also able to empathize with Nail and this establishes a sense
of trust between the readers and Nail. Another element of personhood is the signature at the end
of the letter. These fliers were most likely photocopied but the touch of this personal element of
his signature adds another element of trust and personality. Nail makes himself seem more
human to the readers by adding his signature which in return helps readers trust him easier.
Emotional appeal from personal touches to language and diction to persuade his audience
to believe these protests are violent. This artifact shows us the many sides to the 1970s protests
as well as a small view into what the students felt on campus.
References
“To those who…” WSU Student Protests Ephemera, 1970-1972 (UA 315) Manuscripts,
Archives, and Special Collections, Washington State University Libraries, Pullman, WA.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment