Draft Wksp for Addison

1. Well, the paper didn’t really go into how to actually carry out Bush or Kerry’s plans to “handle the conflict” in Iraq. He simply stated that there was conflict, that the election will depend on how well Americans believe each candidate could solve the conflict and stated what Kerry and Bush generally believe should occur to do this. The only counter argument could probably be… is the war in Iraq REALLY all Americans care about? Also, possibly why would promoting and preserving democracy in the middle east help national defense? Maybe democracy isn’t meant for all countries and maybe this war is just causing more people to be angry at the US and support their claims that America is arrogant. He did show Kerry's belief that Bush "bull[ied].. [and] act alone when they could assemble a team." Elaborate on this and prove why Bush didn't act this way in order to prove the point.

2.This paper does not have a tight, cohesive and powerful thesis. It is very unclear what the main point of the paper is. Possibly, the last sentences, “George Bush seems to me to be a much more effective leader when it comes to national defense. He has a proven track record, and while America did enter Iraq on wrong pretenses, I believe that promoting and preserving democracy in the Middle East is extremely important,” could be considered the thesis statement. However, the paper never went and discussed this at all. No evidence was provided to prove or back-up his statement.

3.Ethos was possibly used by presenting Kerry’s argument that Bush was a bully, but he never elaborated on this. He did spend a great deal of time explaining how similar their plans were though. He didn’t portray depth of thought or establish credibility at all. Depth of thought could probably come naturally with the use of pre-writing.
The only use of pathos could be a sense of audience, but even that was not especially strong. The audience would probably be pro-bush because only a pro-bush reader would leave the paper feeling that Bush was the stronger leader based on the information given.
Logos was probably the most utilized, but even that wasn’t very strong. No stats were used but he seemed to try and appeal to logic by saying “he has a proven track record” almost saying “he’s done it before, he can do it again.”
No specific rhetorical strategy dominated because no rhetorical strategy was clearly used and well developed.

4.Every point made in the paper could be supported with additional evidence with the exception of possibly the statement “both candidates will continue the struggle in Iraq [but have] different perspectives on how that can be achieved.” He needs to provide evidence of Bush’s “proven track record” and deduce why promoting and preserving democracy in the Middle East is so important. His paper has an authoritative tone-almost factual, without the facts. More evidence is definitely needed.