Advocacy  Project  Peer  Review

Rhetoric  and  Argument
ABOVE
X

Review  of  the  Scientific  
Literature

MEETS

BELOW

The  foundation  of  the  advocacy  
project  is  a  well-­‐written  and  
relevant  review  of  scientific  studies  
about  the  animals  impacted  by  the  
issue  being  covered.  This  review  of  
the  literature  is  presented  with  a  
historical  framework  and  is  logically  
connected  to  the  presentation  of  
the  problem  and  the  solutions  
offered.
Comments:The  literature  review  is  grounded  in  a  chronological  historical  framework,  which  is  
then  called  back  to  from  when  discussing  the  problem  “As proven through studies like those
conducted by Bahlig-Pieren & Turner, dogs are capable of feeling emotions and pain, but their
forms of communication, like their use of body language, is often misunderstood by humans.”  

X
The  composition  clearly  presents  
and  analyzes  a  significant  
political/social/cultural  problem  
and  establishes  the  problem’s  
urgency,  scope,  and  severity.  The  
problem  is  clearly  framed  and  
focused;  it  is  not  presented  as  the  
writer’s  opinion,  but  is  a  “sourced”  
argument,  backed  up  with  credible  
sources.
Comments:  The  scale  and  severity  of  the  problem  is  presented  immediately,  and  backed  up  with  
a  credible  source.  “Presently in the United States, there are a total of 19,448 cases of animal
Problem  Statement  and  
History

abuse, 11,894 of which list dogs as the victims according to Pet-Abuse.com, an online database
that documents incidents of animal cruelty.”  

X
The  composition  presents  and  
analyzes  solution(s)  to  the  central  
problem  (Macro  and  micro  solution  
offered).  Rigorous  and  well-­‐
documented  arguments  that  
address  a  possible  solution  or  
solutions  are  presented  clearly.  
Comments:  The  social  media  aspect  of  the  solutions  could  use  expanding.  “Taking advantage of
Analysis  of  Solutions

this convenient method of information dissemination, we can bring a greater awareness to the
problems of canine abuse. “ is somewhat vague at the moment.

Argument  Development  
and  Counterargument:

Rigorous  arguments  of  a  possible  
solution  or  solutions  are  developed  
through  the  use  of  expert  support,  
persuasive  evidence,  and  well  
chosen  rhetorical  appeals.  The  

X

composition  anticipates  and  
responds  effectively  and  
appropriately  to  oppositional  
claims.  For  the  level  of  this  course  
and  for  this  particular  assignment,  
the  arguments  are  sophisticated,  
creative,  persuasive,  insightful,  and  
deeply  embedded  in  scholarly  
discourse.  
Comments:  The  legislative  approach  is  well  documented,  however  the  public  education  section  
is  a  bit  light  on  concrete  arguments.  “The initiation of a licensing system with pre-licensing
classes serves to screen for potentially problematic owners, which may reduce cases of canine
abuse significantly” is a bold claim that might not be supported enough.

X
Uses  at  least  one  multi-­‐modal  
element,  and  this  element  
strengthens  and  deepens  
explanations,  summaries,  or  
arguments.    Visual  evidence  is  
dense  and  diverse  in  information,  
yet  communicates  information  
clearly  and  effectively.  
Comments:  Excellent  use  of  self-­‐made  infographics.  The  dog  expressions  image  in  particular  was  
very  effective  and  helping  the  reader  understand  complex  forms  of  dog  communication.  
X
Organization/Arrangement   The  project  is  well-­‐organized  and  
easy  to  follow,  with  transitions,  
of  Evidence:  
topic  sentences  and/or  headers  to  
help  guide  the  reader;  the  
presentation  of  evidence  is  
arranged  coherently  and  
demonstrates  a  well-­‐documented  
analytical  synthesis.  
Comments:  The  section  headings  are  helpful  for  identifying  each  section  of  the  essay,  however  
transitions  could  be  stronger.  The  literature  review  could  use  some  transition  sentences  to  
emphasize  the  shifting  historical  perspective,  however  that  could  be  challenging  as  that  area  
might  need  to  be  trimmed  due  to  length  constraints.  
Scholarly  Ethos
Throughout  the  composition,  the  
writer  illustrates  the  scholarly  ethos   X
of  a  well-­‐informed,  objective,  and  
credible  advocate.  
Comments:  Constructing  complex  arguments  that  tie-­‐in  differing  articles  and  sources  makes  the  
writer  seem  well-­‐versed  in  the  topic:  “ These findings are made more intriguing when we
Multi-­‐Modal  Element(s)

consider the strength of the human-canine relationship dogs are able to form with their caretakers
that was demonstrated by the kennel experiment conducted by Tuber et al”

Evidence  and  Information  Literacy  
Sources:  Credibility  &  
Relevance

The  selected  sources  are  credible  
for  a  scholarly  audience  and  offer  
clear,  relevant  support  to  all  of  the  

X

composition’s  argumentative  
moves.
Comments:  All  of  the  sources  are  diverse,  but  extremely  relevant  to  the  topic  at  hand:  
lawmakers,  researchers,  and  public  activists  all  support  a  specific  argument  from  various  angles.
Source  Use  and  Integration The  composition  uses  sources  
X
appropriately  in  distinct  and  
different  
capacities:    primary/secondary,  
exhibit/argument/background.  The  
author  integrates  the  sources  
seamlessly  into  the  composition  
and  properly  introduces  them.    
Comments:  As  mentioned  previously,  the  diverse  are  all  used  in  areas  when  they  could  be  most  
effective.  At  times  the  introductions  can  be  wordy  (see  comments  in  essay),  but  are  good  at  
reinforcing  the  credibility  of  the  sources.
Documentation  &  
The  AP  is  formatted  correctly  using   X
Formatting
MLA  formatting  (this  includes  
margins,  page  number  location,  and  
page  1  header).  Sources  are  
documented  appropriately  using  
MLA;  this  includes  appropriate  
captions  for  multi-­‐modal  elements  
and  correct  format  for  Works  Cited.
Comments:  No  issues  to  be  found.  Even  the  multi-­‐modal  elements  have  proper  citations.

Style  Mechanics  and  Conventions  
Clarity,  Sentence  Structure  
and  Readability

The  writing  is  clear,  eloquent,  
X
characterized  by  precise  word  
choice,  purposeful  sentences  with  
varied  structure,  and  a  high  degree  
of  readability  for  the  level  of  its  
course  and  this  particular  
assignment.  Few  errors  of  
grammar/language/usage  are  
found,  and  if  there  are  small  errors,  
they  do  not  detract  from  
readability.
Comments:  I  only  spotted  one  grammar  error  and  a  handful  of  awkwardly  worded  sentences.  
Most  of  those  instances  were  related  to  source  introductions,  so  it’s  possible  my  style  might  
conflict  with  the  writer’s.
Organization  and  
The  organization  is  deliberately  
X
Development
paced,  and  demonstrates  a  very  
high  degree  of  skill  and  control  
when  moving  from  idea  to  idea,  
paragraph  to  paragraph,  and  
sentence  to  sentence.  Connections  
are  made  throughout  the  essay  to  
create  cohesion

Comments:  At  times,  the  transitions  are  very  effective.  For  example,  first  the  writer  lays  the  
foundation  of  the  historical  perception  of  dogs,  and  then  uses  the  following  transition  to  move  
into  more  recent  scientific  studies:  “More recent studies from the late 20th to early 21st century
provide even further insight into canine intelligence and learning and its effect on our
consideration of dogs as conscious intelligent creatures.” More transitions like that will bolster the
flow of the paper.

Required  Elements

Page  length,  number  of  sources,  
X
and  included  content  as  described  
in  prompt  meet  the  minimum  
requirements
Comments:  Page  length  seems  to  be  right  at  the  upper  limit,  with  more  than  enough  sources.

Style,  Mechanics,  &  
Conventions
THE TOP THREE PRIORITIES I RECOMMEND FOR YOUR REVISION
STRATEGY:
1. Bolster the social media plan. Maybe strategize what sort of campaign
would be effective: raising awareness for the victims, fundraising for the
Safe Haven programs, etc.
2. Revisit the introductions of your sources. I gave one concrete example in
a comment of how I might revise one. In general, placing their title before
their name without any punctuation can be awkward to read, especially if
you’re introducing two sources in the same sentence. When introducing
two sources, consider just making that a standalone sentence saying who
they are and what they research. Then go into the specific facts from them
that you want to cite.
3. Contemplate some counterarguments to the proposed solutions. If the
public needs educating, how specifically would that be implemented?
Could social media help there as well?
My suspicion is that you ran into a similar issue as me: length. I ran up against
that 12-page limit fairly quickly, while my solutions (and counter-arguments)
seemed a little thin compared to the lit review and “what’s the problem” sections.
Do your best to try to trim those two areas down to bolster the solutions section.
Good luck!