Please Follow the common to revise the paper, and please use RED to marketed out the change that you have made, thx

I think you chose an appropriate article for your rhetorical analysis, and you’ve begun by including a summary of the article for the benefit of your reader. I can also see you laying the groundwork to introduce your reader to disability studies key concepts like ableism and inclusion. This is a good beginning! As you prepare to revise, here’s where I suggest you focus your efforts.

• Rhetorical Analysis: One element that’s in need of further development in this draft is the basic nuts and bolts of rhetorical analysis. Make sure you’re identifying specific moments in the text, analyzing them for the choices the writer is making, and citing the text appropriately. If you’re examining rhetorical appeals, be sure to explain why it’s significant that the writer has chosen ethos or pathos or logos—you may be able to compare or contrast their approach with stereotypical rhetorical appeals that Jarman discusses, for example. You’re doing the broad strokes of rhetorical analysis, but some of your interpretation feels a bit generalized. I found myself asking, “how do you know” when you’d make a statement about the significance of a particular passage.
• Introduce Sources (Longmore): Can you take some more time when you first begin discussing Longmore to explain who he is (using his full name and the full title of his essay) as well as his project? If I’m a brand new reader, I’m not going to know what the main idea of “Disability Watch” is. Be thoughtful about introducing key concepts—I’m not sure the medical and social model are providing enough interpretive value in your draft by themselves.
• Bigger “So What”: Anchored in the rhetoric you’re close-reading, try to develop a bigger “so what” for your reader. Go beyond just observation and make sure you’re interpreting what you’ve read in light of what you’ve learned about disability studies. What do you want your reader to understand differently about ableism, now that they’ve read your essay? What do you understand now about ableism and the way it manifests in public narratives about disability, that perhaps you didn’t understand before? How does understanding the tools of rhetorical analysis or the specific disability studies key concepts you chose change the way you respond to the article you selected?