Peer Review

Name of Reviewer: Kevin Baylen

Author and Title and Draft: Deena Singh, Essay for Business Ethics, First Draft
(Give both positive and negative comments. Make your responses as concrete as possible. Think
about what feedback would be helpful to you to hear and how you would like to hear it.)

DEFINITION OF TOPIC:
What is the thesis statement? Which aspects of placement and presentation of the thesis
did you find helpful?
The thesis statement is In relation to business ethics, one topic which is very
controversial is whether or not it is ethically sound to compromise an employees right to
freedom of expression, inside as well as outside of the workplace environment. It was
helpful that it was at the end of the introduction paragraph, as is traditional.
Which aspects of the thesis did you find unclear? What additional background or context
would you require in order to understand the thesis?
The thesis was fairly clear, I find stating one topic which is very controversial,
to be extraneous. Perhaps change it to be it is controversial whether.

ARGUMENT AND STRUCTURE:

Which parts of the paper are the most convincing? Be specific.
The most convincing parts of the paper were when aspects of the argument did
not favor either the employee or the employer. For example, in the third example, it was
not only described what was immoral on the side of the employer, but as well, it was
explained what standards the employee must also uphold.
Which parts are the least convincing? Why? Gaps? Counter-arguments that should be
acknowledged? Unrelated strands?
The least convincing parts were where a sentence would begin with I believe
and then not have evidence on why I should believe the same thing. For example, in the
third to last paragraph, it says I do not agree that employees should be able to speak
negatively or rudely about their employer over matters such as company policy, unless
the company is committing a legal infraction. But I could argue that negative views are
still protected under the constitution.
USE OF REASONING AND EVIDENCE:
Where does the author make effective use of reasoning, evidence or examples to support
a conclusion?
There is effective reasoning in the paragraph about the blog post mentioning an
employer. Using the parallels of keeping private life out of a work environment, and
therefore keeping work life out of a private life environment was reasonable and
convincing.

Are there paragraphs where the author could have used more support?
The paragraph about consequentialism and deontology could use more support in
describing the aspects of each ethical approach.
Peer Review Form p. 2

INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENT OR CONTRIBUTION:

What unique insights did the paper offer?
The paper described certain standard that an employer as well as certain standards
that an employee must uphold in order to maintain a respectful and honorable business
relationship.
Where would you have liked the author to commit him or herself more fully?
I would like a bit more in applying the ethical approaches to the situations that
were mentioned.

FORM AND STYLE:

List examples of use of language that you found interesting or that helped you as a
reader:
I found it helpful that the first sentence of each paragraph described what was
going to be talked about in that paragraph.
Which features of the writing got in your way as a reader?
There were frequent phrases like I believe or I think. Taking this out will
strengthen the arguments, because even though it is still implied that it is what you
believe or think, when phrases like those are present, they seem like a qualifier to
arguments which you are not confident about.
Did this paper meet the expectations of its audience? Why or Why not?
This paper met the expectations of its audience. It clearly set the topic, provided
background, and developed arguments backed up with evidence and reasoning.

GENERAL COMMENTS:
Given all of the above, remind the author (and yourself) what you liked best in this
paper?
I liked best the providing of multiple different examples of situations where rights
of employees were compromised.

What do you think should be the authors priorities in revising this piece?
More application of the ethical approaches to the situations and removing I
believe.