Rhetorical Analysis - Peer Review

Instructions

Peer reviews are a helpful step in the revision and editing process. It is common for a second pair of eyes to catch mistakes that the author misses. This activity will allow you to provide and receive peer feedback on your draft.

Content

1. What is the hook? Is it effective at grabbing the reader's attention?

2. Does the introduction contain the author's name, publication date, article title, and other pertinent contextual information? Is there anything missing?

3. Has the author summarized the argument's claim in one sentence?

4. What is the thesis statement of this analysis? Does it contain an overall evaluation of the argument's effectiveness and mention the three appeals?

5. Does the second paragraph effectively summarize the argument? Are all the main points covered? If you had never read the argument before, would it thoroughly explain the crucial aspects of the argument?

6. What are the specific examples of ethos provided by the author? Does the author effectively show how the argument's author does not or does display a connection with the audience, proper credentials, and credible sources? If not, why not?

7. What are the specific examples of logos? Does the author accurately identify and analyze the claim, reasoning, and evidence of the argument? If not, why not?

8. What are the specific examples of pathos? Are emotional appeals correctly identified? Why or why not?

9. Does the conclusion wrap up the paper effectively? Why or why not?

Organization 1. Does the paper have a clear overall organization, with a paragraph each for the introduction, summary of the argument, pathos analysis, ethos analysis, logos analysis, and conclusion?

2. Does the thesis statement provide a preview for the organization of the paper?

3. Does each body paragraph begin with a topic sentence that indicates what will be discussed in that paragraph?

Mechanics

1. List any grammatical, spelling, or typographical errors. Look specifically for run-on sentences (including comma splices), fragments, and missing/misplaced commas

2. Does the paper flow smoothly? Identify where the author has used too many short, choppy sentences or long, complex ones in succession. A paper that flows well should have a good variety of sentence structure.

3. Are transitional words and phrases included to help the paper flow smoothly from one idea to the next? Where should the author work on better transitions?

Miscellaneous

What is your overall impression of the paper? What are the major changes that need to be made? Also, what are some things the author has done well?

here is the draft

A Rhetorical Analysis of Jennifer Lotito's "To Fight AIDS, We Have to Stop the Spread of Covid-19"

Imagine living with HIV/AIDS during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why is it necessary that to fight HIV/AIDS, we must stop the spread of Covid-19? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV patients have a higher prevalence of certain underlying health conditions. If exposed to Covid-19, older adults and those with underlying medical conditions are more likely to become very ill. This is especially true for people with advanced HIV or people with HIV who are not receiving treatment (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.). This is the main idea that is addressed by the writer, Jennifer Lotito. The writer argues, "To fight AIDS, we have to stop the spread of Covid-19" (Lotito, 2021). She makes a compelling case for it by effectively appealing to logic and reason, emotions, and establishing her credibility as the writer with the use of credible sources. In her article, Lotito stated that "after nearly two years of tackling both AIDS and Covid-19 at the same time, a sobering reality has emerged: preserving and catalyzing two decades of AIDS progress will require first stopping the spread of Covid-19" (para 3). To defeat AIDS and Covid-19, our leaders must treat these two crises as global emergencies that they are (para 2). Unfortunately, the vaccination rate in third-world countries is very low because of a supply shortage which makes this current situation completely unacceptable. Its effect can be seen among the most vulnerable including people living with HIV/AIDS in countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The lack of funding and resources are some of the reasons for the low vaccination rate. Because of this, Lotito (2021) believed that more funding and resources from wealthy countries and the private sector are now required to ensure that doses are obtained and administered to everyone, everywhere (para 3). Lotito's (2021) appeal to logic and reason effectively demonstrates logos throughout her article. Lotito presented data from UNAIDS which according to estimates by the organization, Covid-19 could result in up to 293,000 new HIV infections and 148,000 additional AIDS-related deaths between 2020 and 2022. And, for the first time in its 20-year history, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, an international global health organization that fights epidemics, saw a 22% decrease in HIV testing and an 11% decrease in reaching people with HIV prevention services in countries where the Global Fund invests in 2020 (para 5). Sadly, Sub-Saharan Africa is home to roughly two-thirds of people living with HIV, but less than 5% of the population is fully vaccinated against Covid-19, leaving these individuals extremely vulnerable to Covid-related morbidity and mortality according to UNAIDS (para 4). Next, Lotito (2021) effectively appeals to emotions (pathos) by contrasting how first-world countries such as the United States of America have gradually returned to normalcy while others in third-world countries such as South Africa, where a coronavirus variant known as Omicron was first discovered, are still dealing with the effects and threats of the pandemic (para 2). Lotito continued to say, that the pandemic is affecting communities all over the world, but it is especially severe among the most vulnerable, such as people living with HIV and other medical conditions (para 4). Lastly, Lotito's appeal to ethos with the use of credible sources was effectively demonstrated in the article. The data she used for the percentages of HIV infections, AIDS-related deaths, and Covid vaccinations came from UNAIDS, an organization that has led and inspired global, regional, national, and local leadership, innovation, and collaboration to eventually eradicate HIV (UNAIDS.org). While the data on the decline in HIV testing and reaching people with HIV prevention services came from The Global Fund, a global movement whose mission is to defeat HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria (theglobalfund.org). Jennifer Lotito also established her credibility as a writer of this article because she is the president and chief operating officer of RED, a global movement campaign whose mission is to end extreme poverty and preventable disease by 2030 (One.org). The author effectively appealed to logic and reason, emotions, and established her credibility through the use of credible sources to make a compelling case for the argument. She was able to support her main point in the article with data from credible sources. She was also successful in eliciting emotions from her readers by emphasizing that HIV/AIDS, like the Covid 19 pandemic, is a global crisis. Finally, by making her argument free of logical fallacies, she was able to establish her credibility as the writer of the article. Lotito's argument that "To fight AIDS, we have to stop the spread of Covid 19" (Lotito, 2021), was successful, in my opinion.

References

Lotito, J. (2021, December 1). To fight AIDS, we have to stop the spread of Covid-19.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/01/opinions/covid-19-world-aids-day-lotito/index.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/covid-19.html#

https://www.one.org/us/person/jennifer-lotito/

https://www.theglobalfund.org/en/

https://www.unaids.org/en/whoweare/about