PEER REVIEW—CONSEQUENCE ARGUMENT

 

1. Is student’s subject matter clear? Does student have at least two consequences? (Note that thesis, wherever it appears, must assert what the two consequences are.) Recall that this essay DOES NOT reflect a value claim—highlight any words, phrases, or sentences that suggest student is putting their consequences into a larger context: evaluative, ethical, or proposal.

 

2. Evaluating Evidence. Which pieces of evidence have not been described in such a way as to reveal their strength(s) or weakness(es)? Recall that students are not only to use attributive tags the first time they employ a source, but they are also expected to characterize source relative to one of the following criteria: angle of vision/degree of advocacy, reliability, or credibility. If student hasn’t touched on any of these, voice questions about particular sources.

 

3. In which paragraph does student hardly play a role, meaning they don’t really analyze or interpret evidence and/or make inferences based on evidence? Where, in other words, is the student seemingly guilty of data dumping? In terms of logical reasoning, in which paragraph does the student play the strongest role? Why do you think this?

 

4.  Suggest what other sorts of evidence student could look for (ideally, mention any relevant publications or websites). If possible, suggest similar precedents that students could put into perspective and what sorts of statistics could be correlated to establish a connection between phenomenon and consequence(s).

 

5. Can you link all cited material to the Works Cited? Can you link all entries in the WC to material in the essay? Where are page or ¶ numbers missing?