CW: 2/7

Peer editing some of the other papers, rhetorically analyzing spaces, seemed to help me with my paper as well. Through analyzing the papers of my peers, I discovered strategies they used to convey their arguments that I thought were quite effective. It gave me a different perspective on how to right an argument, other than my own. I realized that a couple of my peers to a completely different, but equally effective route to convey their arguments. I realized, while my argument was dense in technical details, it lacked an emotional representation of my space, which some of the other papers conveyed so well. Due to this I plan on going back and embellishing certain aspects of my argument to make it a little more emotional, adding more pathos to my writing.


I also recognized some aspects in my peers writing that I found ineffective. A few of the papers, I found very dry and some others overly descriptive, lacking any real substance. This caused me to rethink my paper. I decided that in order to write the most effective paper a balance between style and substance needs to be struck, in my writing. I don’t want my paper to read like a dry description of my space but, I also don’t want my description to seem over superfluous and emotional. The bottom line is, reading some of the others papers gave me an indication of what I want to, and don’t want to, do in mine.