Jamon's second paper
From Mizzou Wiki
paper reveision Aaron says: Am I missing something? I thought you were going to post a paper for me to look over. While I'm thinking about that, it's dreadfully hard on your peer reviewer to not have paper to peer review. That's why I assigned 600ish words, not an outline. I'll check your other links, in case you put the paper elsewhere.
Introduction:
Thesis: analysis of Wesch's rhetoricnin his first video and how it applies to his newer video web 2.o
body paragraphs: Kairos: the opportune occasion for speech. The video by Micheal Wesch is being presented at a time where large universities are shifting from conventional methods of education to technological methods. So there for this would be the opportune time for such an argument.
Audience: college students, college professors, and specifically Aaron English 1000 summer course.
Decorum: how Kairos fits with audience, in other words it is an analysis of how circumstance and occasion specifically fits to audience and speaker. The argument uniquely is specific to Wesch's college course. However some aspects of his arguments can pertain to other larger university for instance debt, student to faculty _____ as well as use of technology in the classroom.
Logos: argument is presented in a manner that allows audience to logically draw there own conclusion. Yes it allows audience to interpret the information presented. For instance when it adds the hours each night students spend studying, working, and sleeping, the audience is able to conclude that hours don't add up before the final card explaining that it takes 26.2hours.
Pathos: Appeal to emotion. The video does appeal to emotion. The music and images are used to present a specific mood as well as some of the facts. One example of which is the abandoned lecture hall in the beginning. The feelings portrayed are at fist depressing and overcoming.
Ethos: persuasive appeal the video is persuasive in its presentation of a situation. However the video doesn't conclude to whether technology is either negative or positive. The video does not provide a solution as well.
Aaron says: You don't need the rest for this paper. The earlier paragraphs make sense though. You should probably focus on more than one example though, or you're going to come up short.
Epideictic: type of appeal, that either blames or praises the video either Praises or blames technology.
Order of presentation from video introduction statement of facts proof refutation no conclusion
Style: expression of Delivery: how it said.
Lauren’s Peer Review for Jamon! Jamon your “paper 2” was very hard for me to peer review because it was not a paper. It was just your ideas for your paragraphs, I think. About your thesis, I think that if you are making a new thesis you should keep it similar to what your original thesis in your paper 1 was. Or try not even changing your thesis. Try to make an argument with the rhetorical text that supports your same thesis from your first paper. I read through your first paper and I don’t know how you are going to put both of your papers together. I am sorry but I really don’t even know what you are trying to argue in your second paper. To me I can’t make sense of it. In your first paper you have many grammatical errors that you need to fix. I’m sure when you put paper 2 into paper 1 you will read over the whole thing and fix all those distracting errors. In your second paper I am unsure if you are using Kairos, decorum, and audience, or if you are going to use ethos, pathos and logos to support your argument. I don’t see an argument that you are trying to make. Also in your first paper you didn’t have a conclusion summing up your whole idea for your paper. You ended on a note about attractive girls and having to get used to them here in college. That is not a good way to end a formal paper. It also has nothing to do with your thesis in your introduction. I guess all I can really say is that your second paper is really hard for me to peer review because I can’t even really see your ideas for it. I could peer review your first paper a lot but that is not the assignment for this. I am supposed to be reviewing your second paper but I can’t. It seems that you have an understanding for the rhetorical texts though. That is a good thing!!! Now you just need to work those into your first paper to help build support for what you are wanting to say. I am sure that when you get your ideas for your second paper down more you will come out with a good paper. Your first paper has some really good ideas in it and I think you can use those ideas to create good bulk for the second part of this assignment.
