Peer Review for Sam Teacher Example

5 points

• Technically perfect

• Follows the classical argument

• Displays an interesting and unique perspective on a highly specialized topic

• Thought provoking and captivating

• Clearly the product of extensive drafting and research

4 points

• Technically perfect

• Follows the classical argument

• Displays a unique perspective on a highly specialized topic

• Clearly the product of thorough drafting and research

3 points

• Follows the classical argument

• Displays a unique perspective on a highly specialized topic

• Some evidence of drafting and research

2 points

• Displays a unique perspective on a highly specialized topic

0 points

• Incomplete or inadequate

Grade
According to the rubric above, what grade would you give this essay? Why?
This essay deserves a three. The perspective is unique - Most people think that robots will match human intelligence eventually. There is basic research to support some ideas.

How does this essay need to improve to get a better grade?
The research needs to improve. Too many ideas are based on opinion. For example, the criticisms of Kurzweil are not founded on evidence, just the author's opinions.

Thesis
What is the thesis?
Although computers are constantly evolving, they will never be as powerful as the human brain.

Is the thesis clear and debatable?
Yes and yes.

If you (The reviewer) wrote this essay, how would you have written the thesis?
The human brain will always be more powerful than computers.

Any other thoughts?
This is interesting. It will be difficult to do any conclusive persuasion because the essay has to be based on conjecture since it is a hypothesis about the future. 

Classical Argument
Can you easily identify the 5 parts of the classical argument? If no, what parts are missing?
I don't see the narration. There is a brief mention of the history of the fear of computers and robots out thinking people, but it is more of a lead in to a confirmation paragraph then a narration. A good narration should examine both sides of the issue and what popular opinion on both sides say. 

Does the introduction catch your attention? Does it comfortably lead to the thesis? 
The thesis claims computers are evolving, but human brains are not evolving. It seems like that is a powerful counterargument to the author's thesis - not a strong starting point.

Does the narration give all the necessary background information to understand the topic?
Yes, but it is missing conjecture about the future. Just because current technology doesn't beat brain power, there is no reason to believe it won't eventually be able to.

Does the confirmation adequately support the thesis?
No. The confirmation only addresses modern day competitors to the brain, not potential future threats. Since the thesis is about the future, I think this is a significant oversight.

Does the refutation and concession address a realistic counterpoint? Does it adequately dispute the counterpoint, or respond in a reasonable manner?
I think the counterpoint is reasonable - Comparing the brain to a computer is difficult or impossible. However, trying to compare them in terms of their ability doesn't directly connect to the thesis. The essay started with a premise about computational power, not practical outcomes.

Does the conclusion summarize the article and address the larger significance of the thesis? 
Yes. I think the final point that, if the reader disagrees with the author, we will cheat ourselves of future technological developments, and what we should really do is focus on using technology responsibly. 

What suggestions do you have for improving the classical argument structure?
The narration is nonexistent or inadequate. Develop it - Tell us about those who agree with you and disagree with you. What are the stakes? If robots rival human brain power, so what? If they don't, so what? Why should we care?

Persuasion
When you started reading the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis? 
I disagreed with the thesis.

When you finished the essay, did you agree or disagree with the thesis?
I still disagree with the thesis.

If your mind changed, why? What parts of the essay were persuasive?
I did not change my mind. 

How could the author enhance the persuasive parts of their essay?
Spend more time considering the future of technology, not where it stands today. You're saying that because today you can't do algebra, you'll never be able to do algebra. Its illogical. 

Research
Is the author using research effectively? 
Yes

Is the research from appropriate sources?
Yes, although none of them are from academic research. 

Are the sources obvious?
Yes, the sources are obvious.

Are the pieces of evidence relevant to the thesis or essay?
Usually. The quotes from the robotics expert aren't really relevant because he's only talking about robot power, not computer power. 

Are there any parts of the essay that need evidence to support the claims?
The criticisms of Kurzweil definitely need more evidence. They are entirely opinion based. Perhaps more research into his career - Short comings or missing credentials - would help the argument.