Peer Reviews
Here's what a star student thought of this essay
Quality of writing
The Quality of Written Communication here is generally poor. Though no mistakes compromise the clarity of the essay, there are indications the candidate does not possess a real grasp on the appropriate use of apostrophes "cure's" or how to differentiate between homonyms "were" instead of "we're". These issues need to be address as they give the impression of carelessness to read and re-read the essay in order to rectify these simple errors. They're simple enough to make but even simpler to iron out and this should be done before closing the exam booklet/handing in the final copy of a piece of coursework.
Level of analysis
The Level of Persuasion shown here is fair, but a lot of it is poorly augmented and doesn't feel particularly snappy, and so the procedure isn't sold well. I will say that the counter-argument for the very valid argument about potential over-population as a result of making people live longer is very poor and should such a program go into practise it would be highly unethical and in some cultures immoral to be waiting on the deaths of a stranger in order to 'have permission' to have a baby. The letter features no linguistic rhetoric devices - even the most basic ones are absent, such as rhetorical questions, triples, hyperbole. Second Person Address appears to be the only real linguistic rhetoric feature that's been used and as a result the letter doesn't feel very persuasive at all. I recommend incorporating more of these features into the letter, with perhaps a reconsideration of the counter-arguments, so that they appear more feasible and professionally thought-through.
Response to question
This is a borderline-humorous letter responding to a Writing to Persuade task. It nicely approaches the subject of a fictional medical procedure aiming to halt ageing and sells the treatment well. Although I would argue the description of what would happen to the recipient without the procedure is a little dismaying, as the letter states the procedure will be operational in 25 years time and then goes on to explain how "old age would stop you living your last few years in misery with the inability to take care of yourself, the pains to your body that old age brings, and the deaths of loved ones that's once again due to this deadly disease." This seems like a mightily insensitive remark to make considering the demographic of the procedure won't actually be around to sample the goods if the procedure becomes correctly funded. So I would advise the candidate to be a little more sensitive in convincing recipients of the letter that alternatives to this treatment are not as beneficial.
