Commentary for Milad Sadeghiyan

To start off I do not think that this essay was a great example of a Rhetorical Critique. The thesis was well stated, but the writing after never really connected back to the thesis. The whole essay really stuck to emotional aspect of Christopher Hutchins article and never really went to anything else. For example there was no mention of kairos anywhere in this critique. The only thing that was close was when he (Milad) mentions that the article was written after the US was been in two wars but does not connect that to write timing of the article. It just felt like the whole time I was reading the critique I felt like the writer was reaching to make his points instead of finding the information for the different topics. Also the critique repeats its self over and over again, and I felt since that was happening it was losing the effectiveness of the critique. Also the author of the critique over exemplified some of the actions that he was saying that he personally was apart of. For instance, the author of the critique states that, "I was starring at the screen of my computer and sweating when he was describing the water boarding part"(critique of Christopher Hutchins). That was an over-dramatization of events and gives the reader a sense of interpreting the article satirically and that can mislead the writers audience. Leading off of that point, the following sentence again makes an outrageous statement, "Even if someone doesn’t believe that waterboarding is not torturing or not harmful, he can’t say he is still right after reading Hitchen’s personal experiences of this dangerous activity"(Milad). The statement here is basically saying after reading this article, a person is automatically going to change their mind no matter what. Making statements that are too general in this kind of paper can hurt ones overall point because after reading a statement like that, the first thing that comes to mind is how can one piece of writing be so effective that it can change ones mind no matter what. So overall things to focus on for the final draft would be to go into more detail about Christopher Hutchins writing and do not just focus on the emotional aspect of it, secondly identify the kairos and use evidence that the article was written in a good timing manner. I know that you have already stated that we are in two wars, but it never connected back to the kairos aspect. Lastly, do not make such broad statements. General statements like the one's identified above will get you in trouble while writing this critique.