Peer Editing for Fallacies Paper

Fallacies Paper Peer Editing Sheet

Writer:

Editor:

Paper Title:

Does the writer clearly introduce the song, band and why they chose it at the beginning of their paper?  If not, explain what they should change.

In the second paragraph, does the writer quote SPECIFIC LYRICS and explain what they think the song means?  How many times (at least four)?

In the second paragraph, does the writer consider the audience of the song and explain why?

In the second paragraph, does the writer consider multiple interpretations of the song?

In the third paragraph, does the writer relay the story told by the video using SPECIFIC IMAGES (at least four)?  List them.

In the third paragraph, did the writer note anything that seemed odd or out of place?  Consider the multiple interpretations in the second paragraph—was this the video something that fit in with what the writer feels the song is about?

CHECK FALLACIES IN THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH!  Take out your sheet—check that they are using them correctly (many of you made mistakes with Red Herrings and False Cause).  Make sure they used SPECIFIC, DIRECT EVIDENCE.

In the fifth paragraph, read and consider SOCIAL implications.  What is being said about who and why (consumerism)?  Who has power?  Who is a definer (most of you used hasty generalization)?  This paragraph should talk about LARGER groups, not simple the artist—consider men/women, old people/young people, rich/poor, race, etc.

In the conclusion, make sure the writer drives home their SO WHAT?!  This paragraph should relate back to the writer personally.  They should have considered: Does the music you listen to define YOU in any way, or is it simple an arbitrary choice?  What are you advertising by your music choices?  Is this SEEN in the video?  Underline any of these questions that are missing from the final analysis.

Look at TOPIC SENTENCES.  Does the writer clearly communicate what each paragraph will be about?

Look at TRANSITIONS.  Does the writer hold your hand (tell you where they’re going with their writing) in a way that logically makes sense and helps you understand their observations and interpretations?

Are there any places that you had QUESTIONS about what they were trying to say?  Point them out and suggest how they can make them more specific.

Any general comments (hopefully this paper blew your mind).