Free Critical Thinking On Peer Critique 2

The text I received for analysis was rather interesting in content, but didn’t actually look like rhetorical analysis of the book, which is the main problem of the text. It can be called a summary with some rhetorical tools pointed out, but it is not stated how each of the used tools helps the author reach certain aims. The aims of the authors are also not clear. Below I will explain why I got such an impression from reading the paper.
Thesis developed by the author is rather weak: “The essay is well written with many examples and facts to prove the point, teaching Americans about the recent surge of social networking sites. Christine Rosen effectively uses metaphors, imagery, and logos to instill her thoughts into the minds of middle aged Americans”. It doesn’t provide a scope for deep analysis of the book, but instead lists some of the tools used by the author of the book. I also think that it is not specific enough. To improve it, it is necessary to show how specific tools are used by the author to achieve the required goals.
I didn’t see the actual rhetorical analysis of the book, just a summary of the main ideas. There weren’t a lot of quotes used, and their analysis also wasn’t conducted. The quotes were presented as a development of the stated idea, but it wasn’t for the purpose of the rhetorical analysis. On the whole, the content of the book became the main focus of the paper, not the required analysis.
The structure of the essay is typical – there is a clear introduction, body and conclusion in the paper. Still, the paragraphs are not logically organized, which can be explained by the absence of analysis – ideas are presented in sequential manner, which is why there are no topical sentences with further development of ideas.