WR39C: AP Rough Draft Peer Response

Step 1: Read the entire composition all the way through once without making any marks, without taking any notes, and
without answering any of your peer authors questions. Engage with the text earnestly so that you can respond as an
active representative of the generous, genuine audience for your peers paper.

Step 2: Record your experience as an active reader by responding to the following prompts:

Describe the problem you see your peer author focusing on. (You can paraphrase the problem and cite the
paragraphs from your peers paper wherein you found this information, or you can quote directly and cite accordingly.
Additionally, star (*) these moments in the margin of the original paper.) What rhetorical strategies does the author
use to make the problem feel urgent and important?
The issue at hand appears to be about the severity of smog pollution specifically from coal combustion
in China. Michael was able to utilize the three rhetorical techniques in his introduction paragraph. He
mentions the research he has done during the HCP paper establishing his ethos. The intro includes
statistical evidence for his logos. Michael also uses relatable issues like the connection between smog
pollution and cancer rates while including images that connects to his audiences emotions building his
pathos.

Identify the solution(s) presented in your peers paper. Underline them, and summarize or quote them here.
- Make the government regulation for coal corporations to be more centralized in China.
- Incentives to motivate the public to contribute in addressing the issue.

Then, c omment on the following:

o Does the solution(s) address the problem in a specific, earnest, and plausible way? How/why or why not?
(You should be able to answer this if the author is critiquing a proposed solution as not effective/plausible,
too.)
The solutions proposed by Michael exhibit his AP papers theme of using collaborative efforts by
government and individuals in tackling pollution together.
He explains to his audience the miserable state of smog pollution in China under decentralized
regulation by the government. In addition, Michael mentions a recently proposed agreement in
reducing emissions by the Chinese President. He provides his audience reasons why a specific
aspect of the plan regarding incentives is a great way to get the public to contribute in reducing
pollution in China.

o To whom is your peer directing their proposal(s)? In other words, solutions should have specific audiences in
mindentities that have the power to act upon the proposed solutions. (Draw an X next to those moments
you see your peer author addressing their specific audience(s))
H is proposal is specifically geared towards the Chinese citizens and government mentioning the
importance of their collective efforts in solving the smog crisis.

o How will the solution be implemented, according to your peer author? (Mark with # signs.) What are the
costs of the solution (monetary and non-monetary, but mark all with $ signs)? Is it clear to you that the
solutions benefits (mark with s) outweigh the costs?
C entralizing government regulations was to be implemented under the efforts of citizens to
urge government officials to take notice. Money incentives was a proposed way in making
individuals contribute in combating pollution in China.

*
No specific costs were mentioned in his paper, but it was made clear the importance of
a ddressing this issue when it comes to the health and safety of Chinese citizens.

o How does the author know the solution will work? (Do they describe analogous contexts wherein a similar
solution has worked? Do they link the solution to the root causes of the problem? Do they discuss the
coverage area of the solution, and is it sufficiently large to make a difference to the problem? Etc. [see AGWR
for the 5 Arguments]) In addition to paraphrasing them below, mark these instances with a @ on the draft.
Michael structured his essay to either agree or disagree with Chinese government actions to
address the issue. He emphasizes the ineffectiveness of government actions (knocking door to
door) and explains to his audiences why alternatives need to be considered.
 o How does your author address counterarguments? As a reader, are you satisfied with both the presentation
of the counterargument (Does it seem realistic, earnest, and plausible? Is the opposition well-represented?
Does the author effectively deal with the counter arguments presented by acknowledging, rebutting, or
resolving the concerns?) Mark these places with a C on the draft.
T hough I may have overlooked, the only counterargument I noticed that was addressed in the
AP paper talks about the difficulty centralizing the government due to political gridlock and
ongoing political corruption.

Describe your experience as a reader. Were there any moments wherein you were confused? Should your peer
author consider reorganizing anything? Did you have sufficient context/background information as you read?
T here were a few grammatical hiccups in the AP, but that can be easily addressed by reading the paper
out loud to catch these awkward phrasing and typos. I did enjoy the multimodal sources and captions
provided and questions asked in the middle of the AP paper to further engage its audience.
Organization and background information were sufficient, but background information seem to
overpower the proposed solutions in the paper.

Comment on your peer authors ethos throughout the essay. Do they maintain an effective tone, use credible sources
well, incorporate effective multimodal elements, and seem in control of their prose?
T he paper does a great job of utilizing the rhetorical strategies. I enjoyed the consistent tone and use
of reputable sources throughout the paper. I also enjoyed the multimodal sources provided
accompanied by engaging captions. I also enjoyed the use of questions to gather the audiences
attention on the paper.

Step 3: Write a GLOW and a GROW statement for your peer author below. For the GLOW statement, describe the
single greatest strength/achievement of this draft. For the GROW statement, describe the one feature of the paper the
author could address to most improve your reading experience.
GLOW: A great job on establishing your ethos, pathos, and logos through the use of various techniques and
make the audience engage on the issue at hand.

GROW: I felt that there needs more input from Michael regarding the solutions. I felt as though the
problems are more talked about than the solutions in the paper. Try to find a balance between the
solutions and problems to distinguish this paper from the HCP.

Step 4: Sign and date this page below, and prepare to talk through your responses with your peer.

Signature [type name]:Ralph Lemuel Santos date: 1

1-22-2017