What works and what doesn't

In the example rhetorical analysis, the writer does a great job at discussing his/her opinion as well as tie in facts to support why he/she chooses to stand on that side of the argument. The introduction is a real attention grabber because it clearly states the facts while comparing the media's topic, comparing world disasters, to other disasters that are current in our world today. The opening paragraph is great and sets up for a great rhetorical analysis. Reading farther into the paper, there are many places where sentences are not needed because they are just not necessary and tend to repeat what has already been said. The writer was just trying to "pad" the paper so that it would meet the necessary word requirement, which is quite evident in certain places. In addition, some of the ideas are not complete thoughts. The writer needs to elaborate on some of the ideas that are suggested in this analysis rather than leaving the reader hanging.
The way the writer/author really elaborated on the main points he/she had about the media ad was great and is sure to convince an audience. I hope to argue strong points and be able to be as passionate about the main use of rhetoric behind the ad I choose. Another good point about this rhetoric analysis is the author tells the reader up front that the only strong argument that can be made about this ad is using pathos. The author says the ethos is not credible and nonexistent in this ad and that the logos is unreliable. Going into this analysis, the reader already has insight on what to expect and that is because the author did a great job in preparing his/her audience. These are some key points I want to include in my analysis.