Project 3 Peer Review A

For this peer review I reviewed Rashaan Malik's rhetorical analysis which is about his rhetorical situation for his topic of the 2020 FIFA World Cup controversies.

Overall, Rashaan's rhetorical analysis is well done, and provides a lot of detail in answering the questions that someone might have about his project.  He does a good job of explaining information about him, his purpose, audience, and context through clear sentences that directly answer the questions that a reader may have.

Rashaan understands the goal of project 3, but I feel like he wants to be as nice as possible when he doesn't have to be.  For instance, for his purpose, Rashaan says he wants "the audience to consider the malevolent nature of corporations..."  I believe for the sake of an argument, his goal should be to have his audience understand and accept the things he wanted them to consider, as that should be the goal of an argument, to get people on your side.

Another concern I have is that while Rashaan is arguing about a controversial topic, I feel as though the majority of his audience would already be in favor of the positions he is going to argue for, which defeats the purpose.  I may however be wrong about the general opinion of his topic, but I would recommend that he argues for something that is polarizing in itself.

I liked that Rashaan knows he must consider qualifying arguments and take other perspectives into account which I did not think that much about during my pre-production phase.  For my revision, I identified specific problems and provided suggestions.