Peer Review

User Generated

zxnyv

Humanities

Description

For this assignment you Review classmates essay and complete the peer review form fill in the writer name which is Analisa Huizar and the readers name is Master Muhammad.Provide feedback for all 8 numbers The peer review form and The essay is also attached

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Writer’s Name ___________________ Reader’s Name______________________ Peer Review Worksheet: English 101 Writers: Post your essay as a Microsoft Word document—the file name should have your name, essay name (Essay 3), and a file extension of .doc or .docx, which means a Microsoft Word document. Readers: Download two students’ papers and THIS document. Be sure to read through the entire essay-and THIS peer review workshop sheet-before you begin the critique. Answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible based on your reading of the essay. Type your critique (answers to the questions below) into this document. Make sure to give the writer as much honest feedback as you can; remember that your response may make the difference between a weak paper and a strong one. Next, click reply to the writers’ posts and upload THIS completed document for the writers to review during their revisions. REMEMBER, YOU WILL NEED TO REVIEW TWO DIFFERENT ESSAYS. 1. Write the thesis here: _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Is the thesis direct? Does it appear at the end of the first paragraph? _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Does the thesis effectively answer the question in the prompt? How could the writer improve thesis focus, if necessary? _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Do you get a clear sense what the paragraphs are about through the topic sentences? Write the strongest topic sentence here and state why you think it is strong. _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Write the weakest topic sentence here and state why you think it is weak. _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Regarding the MLA, check the parenthetical citations in the text and the “Works Cited” page. Do these conform to the MLA’s exact specifications? Can you mark the paper accordingly? _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Does the conclusion provide closure, restate the thesis, and summarize the paper? How could the writer make it more effective? _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Finally, write any suggestions you may have to strengthen the paper that was not covered above. _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Analisa Huizar 27 April 2018 Professor Wilson In reading blink; the human ability to make quick decisions with very little information is an amazing talent, as shown through Malcolm Gladwell's book “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking.” This ability to thoughtlessly find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experiences is known as "thin-slicing," and it's helpful properties are often overlooked in the world today. Gladwell argues that in many ways, snap judgments may be as accurate as/or even better; thoroughly calculated decisions by utilizing the story and rhetorical questions. Gladwell not only manages to keep his audience’s attention, but also effectively demonstrates that thin-slicing can be very useful in determining something that would otherwise require an enormous amount of time. In one of the chapters, the author gives us a story of a time when a young couple came to the University of Washington where their actions were thoroughly recorded. A psychologist named John Gottman was determining whether the couple would still be together after fifteen years by analyzing their argument over their dog. Astoundingly, Gottman managed to predict the result with a jaw-breaking 90 percent accuracy, a no small feat considering that he did not use any other information than a fifteen minute videotape of the couple. This shows that in order to determine something as important as marriage, people do not need years worth of dull data, but several signs that jump right at them at a glance. Gladwell is also able to deliver his message of human snap judgment in a more interesting manner than to explain his ideas without an example to connect to. Gladwell's book periodically contains rhetorical questions to interact with the readers and to transition from the story to the author's analysis of thin-slicing. After the real dialogue of the couple, Gladwell throws in two questions: "How much do you think can be learned about Sue and Bill's marriage by watching that fifteen minute videotape? Can we tell if their relationship is healthy or unhealthy?" Sure, these questions might not have direct answers, but do allow the readers to stop and think whether or not if thin-slicing is sufficient enough for the job. With this in mind, the readers are able to go directly into the author's take of the issue and his analysis of Gottman's "love lab" without any additional transitions. While these rhetorical devices might not directly show that snap judgments might be as accurate as or even better than thoroughly calculated decisions, they work as little checkpoints for the readers and urge them to read further. Utilizing the story and rhetorical questions, Malcolm Gladwell effectively argues that thin-slicing can be just as useful as or even better than a time-consuming judgment. Gladwell's view on this relatively unknown ability makes the readers think twice about the whole nature of decision making. While reading on, I was frequently irritated by Gladwell’s failure to make important distinctions—it seems he was always comparing “apples with oranges.” For example, he says he is disturbed with how much more likely blacks are to be arrested and convicted of crimes than whites are. He says, “I’m not talking here about racial differences in overall crime rates. What I’m talking about is this: if, for example, a white man and a black man are charged with identical drug-related crimes, the black man is far more likely…to go to jail.” But the statistics he cites in support of his thesis are nothing but the differences in rates of incarceration in the public at large, not among those charged with the same crimes! So the reader is left with no way of judging how much of the difference comes from greater use of drugs among blacks (if any), and how much from the difference in treatment in the courts. Gladwell then concludes with a suggestion that something should be done in the legal system to reduce or eliminate racial prejudice, obviously a laudatory goal. His proposed method is to prevent jurors from seeing the race of the witnesses. However, in an earlier chapter, he demonstrated how important it was to view subtle changes is facial expression to determine whether a speaker was telling the truth or lying! Perhaps Gladwell values the elimination of racial prejudice above assessing the truthfulness of witnesses. Or perhaps he just forgot what he had written in the previous chapter.
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

This question has not been answered.

Create a free account to get help with this and any other question!

Similar Content

Related Tags