The introduction is very engaging because of the author's use of second person to directly address the reader. The intended audience is established as college writing students with the explicit mention of a "college writing course." By using second person to paint a hypothetical, the author forces the readers to actively participate in thinking about the ideas being presented.

The author once again builds ethos here by stating that all of his examples are from real life papers. Instead of using excerpts that the author simply created himself, he is using external sources which show that the points conveyed in his argument are applicable outside of just the paper and thus more credible.

Here the author relates to the audience by including informal dialogue. The colloquial language such as "hey," along with the irritated tone builds on to how relatable the scenario is for the reader, which presumably consists of people who can drive or have ever experienced road rage. This way of connecting to the reader builds upon the ethos because the reader feels more of a connection to the author and thus is more likely to believe the credibility of his points.

The author uses anaphora combined with more rhetorical sentences to further educate the reader on the "reading like a writer" technique.

The author uses conduplicatio of the phrase "to this" to emphasize the points being conveyed.

I really like this idea and I would like to incorporate this method in the future. The author mentions observing how an author arouses sympathy, but I think the observation-learning model can be expanded from these small details to larger themes. For example, in The Savage Detectives by Roberto Bolano, geographically separated characters with all different backstories are linked through one unified "visceral realist movement," and this method of character development, spanning a whole book, is an interesting approach that I would love to one day incorporate into a writing piece.

The idea presented in this paragraph is intriguing because it states that all writing can be improved and changed, sometimes for the better. However, in my opinion, I believe that writing still demands a certain respect for the choices of the author. Proclaiming edits as better almost seems disrespectful. In my opinion, writing should be more open, with no writing better than the other, just different stylistically and creatively. (e.g. If you edit the words of Shakespeare, even if it still sounds eloquent, is it still Shakespeare?)

The string of rhetorical questions utilized by the author not only further inform the reader on the specifics pertaining to the main method being described, but they also keep the reader engaged and interested in the writing.

The author quotes professionals, such as Wendy Bishop, throughout the essay in order to build ethos. This further convinces the reader of the benefits of using the "reading as a writer" method by boosting the piece's credibility.