1. Your thesis does a good job of addressing each aspect that you touch on in the paper. You could make it stronger by separating it into two parts-make one smaller thesis for each that is more specific. (i.e what type of lighting? background?)
2. Your analysis is very accurate. With the ad targeting women you did a good job of addressing why each tool was used in the ad, and in the ad targeting men there isn't much to analyze as far as elements go.
3. For better support, I would ask yourself if you think you've addressed each rhetorical strategy (pathos, logos, ethos) clearly. You address the emotional appeals of the ads very strongly, but I would think a little more deeply about the other two.
4. I think your paper flows well because it has a clear structure. The onlly thing that I would change as far as structure is the conclusion.It's sort of redundent. But if you separate your thesis in the intro, then you could easily strengthen your conclusion.
1. Your thesis does a good job of addressing each aspect that you touch on in the paper. You could make it stronger by separating it into two parts-make one smaller thesis for each that is more specific. (i.e what type of lighting? background?)
ReplyDelete2. Your analysis is very accurate. With the ad targeting women you did a good job of addressing why each tool was used in the ad, and in the ad targeting men there isn't much to analyze as far as elements go.
3. For better support, I would ask yourself if you think you've addressed each rhetorical strategy (pathos, logos, ethos) clearly. You address the emotional appeals of the ads very strongly, but I would think a little more deeply about the other two.
4. I think your paper flows well because it has a clear structure. The onlly thing that I would change as far as structure is the conclusion.It's sort of redundent. But if you separate your thesis in the intro, then you could easily strengthen your conclusion.