Benefits of peer review

Overall i believe that peer review is very beneficial. This is because most of the time we cannot see the errors that we have in our own papers, but our peers can easily pick them out. Peer review is also beneficial because everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses in writing, so with the help of a peer we can make turn writing weaknesses into strengths. I have realized that just after doing the first two peer review activities that i have been able to avoid mistakes that i have made. I also have been able to focus more on my weaknesses. I wouldn't say peer review is like watching the super bowl but it isn't that boring. It is worth the time that we take to help our peers out and to receive needed help from our peers. To make a successful peer review session i would make sure the reviewers knew what a paper needs to be a good paper and then I would have them right down 1. What they liked about the paper 2. what the author did well in his writing 3. what the reviewer believes that the author could do to make the paper better and 4. what the author needs to fix (grammar and spelling mistakes etc.). Finally once the peer review session starts instead of having once person say everything that they thought the writer did well I would have each reviewer take turns saying one good thing that they liked so that each reviewer could build off the other. Then i would do the same with what they need to improve. This is how i would organize a peer review session. 

Peer Review-Very beneficial

          I find that the peer review for our papers is very helpful.  Getting feedback on our papers from our peers is beneficial for several reasons.  One of the main reasons I like doing peer review is that it gives me feedback on what I could do better in my paper. Many of my friends that I go to help for don’t have the time to read through my papers, so having a group of well qualified people to edit my papers is a true blessing.  Secondly, peer review is very good in the fact that my peers often have good ideas that I would have never thought of. In the two times we have done peer review I have was given many good new ideas that I used in my final draft.  For example, some sentences in my rough draft I can’t figure out how to make them less wordy, but peer review helps me fix these wordy sentences and make them short and powerful.  Finally, the outline we get to assist in the editing of the essays is very beneficial.  The questions on the outline help the editing process to be well done.  The questions help the editor focus on areas in the paper that are most crucial to a successful essay.  I really feel the peer reviews are useful part of this course. 

            If I was attempting to organize a peer review I would keep it very similar to the way we are conducting peer review sessions now.  The review of a person’s paper by multiple people is very helpful.   The discussion time (15 minutes on each paper) is sufficient in order to cover the outline and go through the paper with the writer in order to show them what needs to be changed. The only thing I might change in the organization of a peer review would be the amount of people that review an essay.  Instead of having just two people, I would have three.  I personally like to have many people to review my paper in order to find all the weak parts in my writing.   Peer review sessions are organized very well.

Peer Review

            I like peer review. It’s one of those class exercises that everyone kind of dreads when the words come out of the teachers mouth but then we actually find it to be helpful and really not that bad at all. I would definitely say that it is beneficial, especially considering that our main audience is our peers and we are trying to write in a way that they would like to read. So if they give suggestions of how to improve then we know what our audience is looking for and we can conform to their style and interests, ultimately making our papers more effective. I wouldn’t say that it is necessarily fun but it’s not a drag either. I always think it will be a drag but in the end it always helps. It also helps when the group members realize that none of us are experts and they don’t make it seem that unless you write their way then your paper will suck: which could be a feeling coming out of the writing center or places like that.

            If I were to design a peer review session I would start with the rubric most likely. I would pull out the essential points to getting an A and that’s what I would base my questions around. Really we’re just learning to communicate more effectively so I wouldn’t feel bad just showing them how to get an A because if the students fulfilled those requirements that would mean that they are communicating more effectively. Then I would just give time for them to go over the questions in groups and then review as a class.

Fallacies- playing with fire?

Fallacies are powerful rhetorical tools.  They can be used to help the reader see the writer's point of view or twist the truth into deceiving innocent bystanders to be swayed to one side.  Fallacies are so common in the media these days that it can be hard to truly distinguish what is truth and what is partial truth.  But that doesn't mean it can't be entertaining.  TV commercials are taking the trend of involving fallacies to draw humor and it is a model that has proven successful.  On the other hand we have politics, which can be a nightmare.  I have to also watch out for how much bias I am taking in because it seems each party uses fallacies to their extremes to get their point across.  So we also see fallacies being implemented for good and bad, but in my personal opinion it adds flavor to life.  Not many just want to the dull boring facts, they want exciting "Hollywood" kind of information.   As for using fallacies in my writing, I'm not sure how comfortable I would be using it.  I like to make logical appeals based on truth and fact, and overusing a fallacy may discredit my authority.  It's not a risk I would easily take.  On a moral standpoint, I would have to draw my line on certain situations between harmless fun and serious fact.  However, this is rhetorical writing so I do see the effectiveness of fallacies.  In this life there are things we control, things we have no control over, and things we can influence.  All we can do is master our dominion what we can and hope for the best.  

Fallacies.

          Fallacies are found in almost any situation.  They can be good, they can be bad, they can be whatever you make them out to be. They are often used in day to day life, as well as writing to make the story to be whatever you want it to be.  It is a very simple way to manipulate any kind of data.  I don't really appreciate skewed stories or data. I like having the full blown story or all the details and, unless it is for a good cause and don't really have an overall effect on whatever my intended audience I feel okay using them. Perhaps when trying to make a point it is okay. It can create a canvas to writing to be interesting and make for some interesting reading but I still am not okay with it. I haven't used much fallacy in my writing because I don't want to be seen as somewhat of a liar.
        I actually used to be really good at manipulating information when coming home late in high school.  I would tell my mother only certain things about where I had been, or only certain highlights about the people I had been with because I didn't want to get in too much trouble.  Even though that could be considered omitting information, I still was able to skew stories and mislead my poor mother(even though she knew better and wasn't letting on.) Is that ethical...? No. Do I still do it? No. Am I comfortable writing with fallacies? Not really. I don't want to lose my case if things are based upon fallacies or someone could find a reason to blame them.

Fallacies are seen everywhere. They are seen everywhere for a reason: when used in the proper (and I use "proper" lightly) they are effective. But what are they? When used in writing as logical fallacies they are arguments or statements meant to mislead the reader. Is it okay to use them? I think that this is a complex question that really has no right or wrong answer. I personally think that it must be looked at on a case by case basis. I don't think that they are ethical, because purposefully leading people astray and basically lying to them does not sound ethical on any level. However, I think that using an effective fallacy may be excusable when it is done to raise awareness or support for a good cause.  The problem with this is that an author who is passionate enough about an issue to write about it while likely feel like it is a good cause, and more often than not there are multiple sides to an issues. Out of this arises multiple authors representing multiple sides, and multiple sides being argued with fallacies because each author feels they represent a good cause. This makes for a confusing situation and could mean that the most convincing author is not the one who represents the best cause, but the one who uses a logical fallacy most effectively.  Do I feel comfortable using them in my own writing? Just as with my general analysis of fallacies, I think that use of fallacies in my own writing is dependent upon the situation. While I am hesitant to throw in fallacies in my writing to argue any point, I feel more comfortable in using them when I feel that I am writing about an important cause. Once again, using a fallacy is really just a judgement call. While not ethical, it could be used as a means to a greater good.

Fallacies can definitely be good and bad; it just depends on the intended purpose of the author. A lot of facetious and ironic writing can hold a fair amount of fallacies just because the author is trying to point out the ridiculousness of an argument or to add some humor to a touchy subject. That is, personally, more enjoyable to read than a lot of reading. I enjoy it especially in writing like newspapers and other short informative articles. I find those kinds of fallacies more fun and more engaging. There are obviously other kinds however. These are normally in skewed data or in some other form of misrepresentation of information. These aren't so good because I feel as though the author knowingly uses skewed sources and purposely doesn't site them because they will discredit his argument.

            I really don’t think that I have practiced enough to correctly use fallacies and I wouldn't feel super comfortable doing it. I think one thing that beginning writers like us could fall into a lot is using fallacies without realizing it (normally due to personal or popular opinion that we don’t realize we need to justify). I wouldn’t feel unethical using fallacies to be more engaging and more easy to relate to for the audience. I do think that other fallacies that change and manipulate are unethical and shouldn't be used. They are something that should be practiced before they can be used correctly just to avoid offending and criticism.