Rewrite/Remix Recap

Your assignment (was): sketch the outlines of a postive evaluation of the US Military stop-loss policy through using either

• the same criteria (honesty, safety, and compassion) but producing a different conclusion
• using some of the same (and some new) criteria, or
• creating entirely new criteria

Most Popular Approach (using same three criteria; hardest one to finesse: "compassion)

Second Most Popular Approach: add a criteria (e.g., "justice," "necessity")

Third Most Popular Approach: new criteria (particularly "necessity," "obligation," "honor," "cost")

Winners:

• Best use of same criteria
• Best use of new criteria ("cost," "national security," duty," and "freedom")

The Workshop

Back to the lab again. Surely you know the drill by now?

Answer the following questions in response to your peer's projects (as always, you should also provide any other recommendations or criticisms that occur to you).

1. Is the project clearly directed toward performing an evaluation?Is it clear that the fundamental objective of the paper is based around an evaluation or proposal?

2. Are the criteria used for this evaluation criteria clear? Identify them if you can. How strong are the criteria that the writer is using? Are the criteria used in evaluations appropriate? 

3. What is the strongest counterargument you can think of to refute the argument of this paper?

4. What do you take to be the strongest element of this project?

5. What do you find to be the weakest part (most in need of improvement) of the project?

6. On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammmar or sentence-fragments? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times?

7. Does the author provide clear exigence for the project? I.e., do they make it clear why they think the topic they have taken up (butter, supermodels, the status of Detroit) is a timely one or one in need of consideration?

8. What grade would you assign this project if this were the final draft?