# data[].attributes.body
I highly suspect that this paper was written using generative AI, but as I learned during this training, I would not draw attention to that fact. Instead, I would point out things about the writing that I feel are genuine concerns. In doing this, I would hopefully highlight the elements that make generative AI unreliable, encouraging the student to do their own research and writing. For instance, I would mention that some of the language was repetitive and they could make it less so by specifying some of their claims. Some of the language was also vague, and instead of making an argument, just listed facts. I would encourage them to tailor their writing more toward the prompt.

# data[].attributes.body
The agenda items I would use to organize my feedback for this draft are specificity, syntax (with a focus on repetition) and evidence. I would present my feedback in these categories and emphasize how improving these areas would help strengthen the writer’s claims and help them properly meet the prompts requirements, as the assignment called for specific examples to support claims and the current examples in the essay are pretty general and vague.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would probably be concision, specificity, and organization. For concision I would address the redundancy that is especially prevalent in the introductory paragraph. I would explain that the idea could be expressed in less words, and this would also blend with my point about specificity. With specificity, I would be identifying areas in the text that could use more specific details or examples which would help them expand on their point, and allow them to provide more analysis. Organization would also function as a complexity tool that would encourage the writer to find comparisons within their writing that they can explore.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would be organization, evidence, and repetition. In terms of organization, the paper is not formatted like a typical essay. The format is one of the things that would make me suspect AI usage. After reformatting the essay, I would then talk about repetition and evidence. The writer uses many of the same phrases repeatedly and uses little to no evidence to back up the claims. I would show the writer how to search for academic sources, and suggest places that I think more evidence would be useful for their readers. Additionally, I would help them think about other ways to rephrase parts of their work so it's not so repetitive.

# data[].attributes.body
I would focus on three main agenda items: syntax, formatting, and thesis. I would address instances of repetitive or overly generic language and encourage the writer to establish their own voice. I would also encourage the author to reformat their 1/2/3/4/5 bullet point style into a more traditional academic paragraph style. The style change would hopefully make the generative AI use less apparent, and would also bring it more in line with what's expected of a rhetorical analysis piece. Finally, I'd work on developing a stronger thesis that hits something more specific and meaningful than: "This essay delves into the importance of ethics in the healthcare system and underscores why maintaining ethical standards is indispensable for the well-being of society."

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items for this written feedback would thesis, structure and evidence. These agenda items would encourage the writer to reevaluate their argument without the use on AI. Thesis could be improved by choosing 3 of the bullet points to focus on throughout their paper. Regarding evidence, the writer could find, and cite, sources that aid their argument. Lastly, I would advise the writer to take their paper out of the bullet pointed format it is currently in. By formatting the essay through paragraphs it would read much smoother.

# data[].attributes.body
I do think that the document was likely AI generated, but I of course would not accuse the writer of this. My agenda items would likely be formatting, citations, and specificity. Together, I hope that this would encourage the writer to change the AI copy/paste formatting and add in their own transitions. Then, I would recommend they make sure all information that is not from their own head is cited (possibly linking multiple resources on this, one of which may say that AI does need to be cited when used). Finally, I would ask the writer to elaborate with their own thoughts, examples, and analysis to add in some of their own writing and perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
My first impression would be that the text is AI-generated, but I would not tell the writer my impression, nor would I accuse them of using AI. Though, I would give feedback that is very straightforward, and that shows that this type of writing might not succeed as much as they think it would (a typical conception with AI)

I think the main agenda items that I would have to put in my letter, in this case, are specificity, repetition, and maybe organization. I would tell the writer that much of the language is both repetitive and not tied to any specific claim. The writer uses a list format (another, typical case of AI generated texts), rather than a step-by-step argumentation, and I would try to convey to the writer how a list format is oftentimes not sufficient to express an argument. Moreover, I think that a lot of the language makes me want to ask more specific questions, but the writer does not elaborate on what they say. There also seems to be a lack of concrete examples/evidence/in-text citations, which makes this text seem even less specific.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would be specificity and organization. I would tell the writer that much of the language is both repetitive and not tied to any specific claim. The prompt does not merely want a list of ethical pillars in healthcare, but rather an argument for the criticality of ethics rooted in both the history of medical practice and patient experiences. Medical ethics are complex, but this paper in its current state does not reflect that complexity. Including citations and evidence would also help the writer reach the word-count requirement, which they have not met. I would also suggest to the writer that a traditional paragraph format would be preferable to the current numbered list, as the list pigeonholes the writer into merely defining parts of medical ethics rather than arguing their importance.

# data[].attributes.body
First thing would be organization/structure. This response looks directly copied and pasted from a ChatGPT response on why ethics are important in healthcare. If we can't outright say it, the structure would be the first thing to be fixed. Then, would be examples and justification. With no real-life examples or citations, the claims in this essay are flimsy and not well defined. By fixing these three aspects it will sound like an actual human wrote it who has experience in the field and knows the human impact of these questions. I may proabably include, within the structure portion of the appointment letter, that the structuring doesn't mimic that of an essay and feels like you generated a bullet list instead of a moving analysis. This way, I don't explicitly say "you used AI" but for a writer who did use it, they will probably notice the significance of the verbiage and hopefully actually write the paper or at the least implement my suggestions.

# data[].attributes.body
The agenda items I would use in response to this paper are organization, argument, and syntax (in order to look at repetition in sentence style/structure and encourage variation). While the writer is encouraged to write a 1000-word essay about the importance of maintaining ethical standards in healthcare, this essay, in its current draft, only explains the different pillars of medicine where ethical standards are especially necessary to uphold. In order to make an argument here, I would encourage the writer to include citations, sources, and further analysis to discuss why and how these ethical standards are important/should be upheld. Further, instead of using bullet points that force the writer into confining their analysis into one pillar at a time, I would suggest body paragraphs with topic sentences that one, explains the pillar, two, describes how it fits into the nuance of ethical standards, and three, argues for the importance of ethical standards within this realm of healthcare.

# data[].attributes.body
Within this paper, I would employ the agenda items of structure, concision, and specificity to all tie to the overall flow and points addressed in the writing. With the agenda item of structure, the focus I would highlight relates to the removal of the bullet points and having a paragraph approach where they can compare the ideas they point out to have a clearer flow in ideas. When it comes to concision, there are multiple areas that I would point out to cut down on words used to describe ideas and showcase where repetition occurs so they can remove that to avoid clear AI usage. Finally, with specificity, I would point out areas where expansion could be used to get into more specific ideas surrounding the points brought up throughout the writing to further connect to the conclusion section.

# data[].attributes.body
I think my three agenda items would be, Precision, Structure, and Conclusion. The agenda items are more generalized examples, not specific examples. It would be worth it to narrow down your broad examples to a few precise ones. I also think the structure of the essay is a little off, as bullet/number points are usually not allowed when writing a formal essay, they're usually used in informal pieces of writing. Instead, it would be more useful to group examples into categories and have those categories be their own paragraphs. And I chose the Conclusion because it doesn't really delve into what the writer talked about in the body of his essay; it should feel more connected to the rest of the paper.

# data[].attributes.body
I think my three agenda items for this paper would be syntax, flow, and analysis. I would choose to focus on these three because I think they would target the AI-sense of feeling in the writing, without directly accusing the writer of using AI to generate the paper. By targeting analysis specifically, I would hope that the writer would use the information they have as a basis for starting a new draft and choosing to analyse why each point relates to the topic instead of just summarising each point. Syntax and flow work similarly to this, but syntax would focus on the words used in order to get more of the writers voice and flow would be the organisation of the essay into something that wasn't marked as 1, 2, 3, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would focus on thesis, clarity, and elaboration. For the thesis, I would mention a focus on crafting a more specific thesis sentence for an expository essay. I can provide reliable sources for examples and outlines of those sentences so the writer can start generating ideas for it. For clarity, I would use this topic as a way to prod at sentences that drift away from reasoning and a full circle connection of their thesis. I could also use the clarity topic to mention citations and where it is important to include sources. And for elaboration, I would use a few comments to point out where the text may leave out useful examples or where it is possible to explain vague terms a little bit more.

# data[].attributes.body
This paper was most definitely generated by AI. But, as everyone has said, I wouldn't point to it directly. However, there are ways to push the writer to think critically about the writing and material in a way that AI doesn't allow for. I think that expansion and evidence/citations would be really great ways to get the writer to continue to think more about the content. I think that there are a lot of areas within the paper that are stating things as facts, and not explaining where the connections are, and why it is important in the grater context of the paper and the topic. By using expansion, I would ask the writer to analyze the definitions and content that is already in the paper, and expand/elaborate on the terms. I think this would help with the AI issue, but it would also allow the writer the space to take the time to understand the material (which is largely why a lot of people use AI for papers in the first place). Evidence/citations would also be ways to get the writer to write and think in their own realm of evidence and reasoning. This will also nudge them towards getting into textual evidence beyond AI and the internet, allowing them to naturally understand the content more and have more of their own work to generate.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that my two agenda points would be formatting and argument. Since the prompt specifies that this assignment should be an essay, I would advise changing the format from bullet points to paragraphs or a specific paper style in order to follow the assignment guidelines. I could also provide a resource on different styles, like MLA or APA. As for argument, I would say that they use phrases like "ethical principles" and "ethical guidelines" multiple times, but they do not define what that means for the reader. What are the ethical principles in healthcare? What do ethical practices look like in healthcare? What is their definition of ethics? If the reader understands what these ethical principles are and what they mean to the writer, then they can better understand the argument about why they are important.

# data[].attributes.body
I think my response to the question would be highly dependent on the prompt, but the first thing that stood out to me was what the paper had as its thesis statement- "This essay delves into the importance of ethics in the healthcare system and underscores why maintaining ethical standards is indispensable for the well-being of society." I would ask the writer to try and reformat it into a more typical thesis statement that introduces the arguments and evidence, in order to give the reader a clear "roadmap." I would also ask the writer what they found difficult about the prompt, in the hopes that giving them some clarity might inspire them to use their own ideas. Also, the format that the essay was in (numbered list with bold titles) is very typical of generative AI. I personally find it effective in terms of organization, but I would ask why they chose to use that format/if the format is in line with the professor's expectations.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I can tell this is AI from the obvious copy and paste font and gray background, I would still not openly accuse the writer of this. My agenda items would be prompt adherence, structure, and evidence. For prompt adherence, I would talk about how the paper doesn't meet the teacher's request of 1000 words, since this paper rings in at about half of that. For the structure, I would make comments about how this is formatted as a list instead of a traditional essay with intro, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Lastly, I would discuss how none of the evidence in this essay is properly cited with where it came from, and there is no works cited page at the bottom. The evidence is technically lackluster, and this feels more like base level knowledge of the topic selected, but there are some instances where even just adding sources to confirm this information would increase the credibility of this essay.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would include evidence and structure. Based on the paper given to me by the writer, I would initially suspect that the writer used AI to generate the paper. I would not mention this anywhere in the appointment letter or marginal comment because of the appointment type. I would focus on evidence because although there is an analysis included in the paper, there isn't any evidence that supports this. I would suggest looking over the structure because their paper right now looks like they just copied and pasted the information from AI. I would suggest reorganizing the points to fit an essay format. This includes having transitions and linking the main ideas. I think these two agenda items would go a long way in helping improve this paper.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda points for this paper would be organization, repetition, and specificity. In organization, I would explain to the writer that while a numbered list is efficient, it is typically considered informal, and their professor will likely be expecting separate paragraphs with strong topic sentences and transitions between ideas. For repetition, I will look through the syntax of the paper and highlight some places where the phrasing feels repetitive. I will encourage a more varied sentence structure and provide a resource with transition word/phrase suggestions to help them vary their word usage. For specificity, I will point out that the prompt asked for specific examples, and suggest some specific spots in the paper where I feel they would be particularly helpful in clarifying the writer's points.

# data[].attributes.body
My two agenda items would be to specify their thesis and use more specific examples. I would want them to complicate their thesis; they say that ethics in healthcare are important and indispensable, but I would urge them to keep asking "why?" Their conclusion seems to hint at those answers, as well as moments in the body paragraphs ("trust, respect, and dignity"), so I'd use marginal comments to highlight those instances. Then, I'd encourage them to use more specific examples, per the prompt, maybe bringing in court cases or hypothetical anecdotes. This would also help them get closer to the word count, since this first draft is about 400 words short.

I wouldn't address anything about AI, but I would hope that engaging in the revision process would still allow them to engage with the material.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would include organization, evidence, and conciseness. For organization, the paper is not organized in the manner a typical paper is, which instantly signifies the assignment was written with AI. I would leave marginal comments asking the student to restructure the paper into paragraph formation, rather than the bulleted list. If the assignment is to be written in APA, I may even suggest the bullet point headers be used as proper headings. For evidence, I would suggest the student include reliable sources to back their claims. My comments would explain how using reliable sources strengthens the paper. Finally, my comments for conciseness would point out how much of the paper is very repetitive and can be said in fewer words. I might suggest areas to omit or offer potential revisions.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would be examples, repetition, and specificity. I would not directly accuse them of using AI, but I would comment on the elements of their writing that fall under these agenda topics. I would point out that the assignment requires them to use specific examples. I would also mark places where their writing seems repetitive, or where they are rephrasing the same main idea multiple times. Lastly, I would encourage them to be more specific and not use as many general/vague terms.

# data[].attributes.body
The agenda items I would use to organize this paper are thesis adherence, citations, and formatting. All of which are in order of highest to lowest concerns. I bring up thesis adherence, because the thesis stated focuses on the reason why maintaining ethical standards are indispensable for the wellbeing of society. The paragraphs that come after don’t fully return to this discussion of extreme necessity discussed within the society. The body paragraphs come off as definition-based rather than digging into how these ethical practices listed are creating indispensable well-being for society. I understand how it impacts the patient on an individual level, but I didn’t really see any broad levels of impact. So, I’d focus on just returning back to the thesis every paragraph. I also commented on citations because there aren’t any. Most of the paragraphs include distinct facts, but no citation of where the writer got them from. I’d suggest citing their sources on revision, as it helps the reader trust what the writer is saying. The last agenda item focuses on format, as I’m unsure of the format style that asks for numbered paragraphs, especially since the writer calls the paper, “an essay.” Of course this is a draft, so I’d suggest that for revision it would be beneficial to find the desired format and adhere to it.

# data[].attributes.body
My three main agenda points with this writer would be thesis, organization and evidence/works cited. This paper seems like it was written by AI, especially with the way it is structured. But even beyond that, the paper is very general and does not seem to have a main point. I would make marginal comments labeled "thesis" in which I would highlight parts of the paper that could be formed into a thesis and I would ask questions that might provoke some thought about a possible thesis. With my organization comments, I would point out places where information could be grouped together and paragraphs can be formed. Finally, I would mention a works cited/references page.

# data[].attributes.body
My main agenda item would be prompt adherence. I think it's important to acknowledge this before making more specific changes. I would choose prompt adherence because the current writing does not meet the requirements of the assignment. It should be much longer and written in an essay form with the examples integrated into the prose writing. I would ask the reader to expand all their ideas and on the examples provided in the essay. I would try to facilitate the writer's own voice in this process.

# data[].attributes.body
I would suspect that this document had some level of AI generation, based on the formatting and lack of reasoning behind the claims.

I would address these issues as two of my main concerns in the agenda items. I would not accuse them of any AI use, but instead focus on how to develop the writing they have provided as it is. Under expanding reasoning, I would work on how they could give it more of a literary voice to strengthen their claims. Under formatting I would explain that bullet points and inconsistencies in text syntax might be detrimental to their grade as they would not give the piece the structure of an essay, as was requested of them by the prompt

# data[].attributes.body
Although I wouldn't accuse the writer of using generative AI to write this draft, I do think it was written by AI. In order to encourage the writer to include more of their own voice and credibility, my agenda items would focus on citations and syntax. Since the professor is looking for writing that cites specific sources, this would focus on the assignment prompt and make the argument claims more specific. Additionally, syntax is a large category, but I would encourage the writer to switch up the sentence structure throughout the argument. The writing is very repetitive, often repeating the structure of items in a series separated by commas. Possibly changing this structure could allow the writer to have a clearer voice throughout the work.

# data[].attributes.body
As we are not to point out the fact that the paper looks as if it were copied and pasted from Chat GPT, I would most likely focus on the agenda points of Formatting, Quote Integration, and Syntax. I would first focus on formatting, as the writer utilizes a numbered list for the paper rather than a designated paragraph for each bullet point. I would point this out to the writer and encourage them to reformat the way in which they go over each idea within their paper. As the prompt asks the writer to integrate quotes and "evidence" throughout, I would encourage the writer to embed more evidence throughout this paper as it was in the professor's prompt. Finally, I would address the syntax as a "catchall" for the repetitive nature of the paper and the word choice throughout. By addressing these points I could address the points of this paper that raised some red flags that this paper was AI generated without blatantly accusing the writer of using AI for this draft.

# data[].attributes.body
I suspect that this piece was made with AI, but I would not bring attention to that as to not make accusations against the writer. My agenda points would definitely be structure, development, and citations. First, I would suggest that the writer remove the bullet points and format the sections into paragraphs to better reflect a structured essay. Then, I would suggest that once the writer structures paragraphs into their essay, they provide more specific examples of what each section talks about since the examples they use are very broad. Lastly, I would suggest that they also include citations in their essay to show that they are getting their information from reputable and verifiable sources.

# data[].attributes.body
To organize my feedback on how this writer might revise their draft, I would focus on 2 specific points: formatting and citation inclusion. Based off the formatting of the draft, it looks like this essay was copy and pasted from ChatGPT. With that in mind, I could encourage the student to use a more essay-like format with an intro, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Changing the format could help organize the argument in a more effective way. I would also urge the student to include citations for where they found the information their evidence is based on.

# data[].attributes.body
To tackle a document such as this, I would first offer an agenda item focus on the structure. The prompt asked for a 1000 word essay, rather than a list, so I would detail that narrowing in on the topics in this list that resonate the most with the writer can make the essay seem more specific and personal. Also, choosing only a couple main ideas to highlight makes it easier to re-structure this piece's information to better fit the assignment expectations. Rather than having multiple topics in list format, choose the most impactful ones and dive deeper using a more traditional MLA essay structure (intro, body, and conclusion paragraphs; longer body paragraphs, and transitions between sections). I'd also highlight specificity. While the information is objectively true, there's an opportunity to dive deeper and draw specific examples to support your claims. I'd tell them to think about their experiences with healthcare and how that can influence what they are discussing in the paper.

# data[].attributes.body
In this specific situation, the main agenda points which I would focus on would be, structure/organization and evidence. This essay in general seems to have been copied and pasted from an AI generator website, this is all based on the current formatting of the paper. I would also say that something else to work on would be their usage of evidence. Throughout the paper I did not see any citations being used but a lot being said as if it were to be coming from a different source. I would definitely make these two things my priority while going through this essay.

# data[].attributes.body
The agenda items I'd use for this paper would include structure, specificity, and elaboration. For structure, I would let them know that I looked over the instructor's directions to see that the essay must be 1000 words. With this in mind, I'd let them know it would be a good idea ot be more specific with some of the phrases used, and by elaborating on ideas that I, as a reader, are left wondering more about (and I'd mention these in the marginal comments). Also when it comes to structure, I would let the writer know that, typically, academic essays are not written in the form of bulletpoints. I would go over how each paragraph should be indented and include transitional phrases. My agenda points and marginal comments would go more into depth with that as well.

# data[].attributes.body
The first agenda point I would mention is organization and structure of the essay. I would explain that it's currently in a list format and not really a traditional essay format. Of course, I would check the assignment sheet to make sure that the professor doesn't want this list-style. My next agenda point would be in reference to their assignment sheet that says " using specific examples to provide support for claims." The agenda point I would set would be to work on finding more support for their claims to avoid making broad claims, since their professor wants specificity. I would also make suggestions about finding sources and citing them/using them within the actual text. I would avoid saying anything about it being likely AI generated, but I would keep in mind that AI can't really provide sources, so I would make sure to make this an agenda point of our appointment.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite appearing to be AI generated, I would organize my comments around the following agenda items: thesis, organization, specificity. The essay does not seem to have a clear thesis that guides the remainder of the information, other than the fact that ethics is important for health care systems. I would encourage the writer to make their thesis clear and strong, leading them to organize the essay differently. The second point concerning organization would highlight the fact that the essay includes lists, which I would recommend against. And the third, concerning specificity, would suggest the writer provide more information about the specific claims they have listed.

# data[].attributes.body
If a writer submitted this paper to me during a written feedback appointment, my agenda items would be (not in any particular order) structure, specificity, and evidence. Structure because the paper is not structured in a typical essay structure of, introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, which is a dead give away that it is AI generated and not organically written. Specificity because all the claims in the essay are very broad and don't actually respond to the prompt in a comprehensive and thorough manner. Finally, evidence because the writer clearly did not cite any specific sources even though the prompt required them to.

# data[].attributes.body
In a situation like this, where it seems almost obvious that the essay was written by AI, as I learned in the training, I would try not to draw attention to it. However, when dealing with AI, I feel it is best to try and critique the AI as if they were a human writer, and therefore a lot of my feedback would have to do with voice and tone. I would encourage the writer to try and employ more personality into their writing as it would enhance and make believable their argumentation so much more.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items for this appointment would be specificity, repetition, and prompt adherence. I would suspect this was written using AI, but I would not point this out. I would instead use my agenda items and comments to encourage the writer to give more details in their answers and ensure their writing sounds more authentic and provide answers that show a grasp of the subject

# data[].attributes.body
The three agenda items I would use are thesis, evidence, and structure. I'd advise that they could craft a stronger thesis that provides a line through the paragraphs, connecting them and crafting an argument around them. I also think they should incorporate sources (evidence) to back up their claims. Finally, I think they should restructure their essay into paragraph form with transitions between the paragraphs rather than numbered order. And, if we had time, I would touch on the conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would be organization, citations, and language. On the first point, I think that body paragraphs with topic sentences could make this paper read more smoothly, as the numbered list felt a bit disjointed to me. Specifically employing transitions between these paragraphs could make the piece read more as a more cohesive whole than a series of assertions. On this point, the use of citations and specific examples to back up some of the writer's points could strengthen their argument and flesh out the paper a little more. As for language, I'd note that certain terms were repeated frequently and encourage the writer to explore other ways to phrase their ideas in a more specific manner.

# data[].attributes.body
If I were giving feedback on this draft, I’d focus on three main areas. First, I’d suggest narrowing down a good thesis statement since the current one is too broad. Focusing on a specific ethical issue, like patient autonomy, would help sharpen the student's argument. Second, I’d recommend adding more specific, real-world examples. Since the essay feels a bit generic and I have suspicions of it being AI-generated, I would suggest that the writer includes concrete case studies to make it more engaging. Lastly, I’d encourage a deeper analysis of the ethical challenges by exploring the topic, rather than just stating the principles. These agenda points would add more depth and help bring the writer's own voice into the essay without making the writer feel like I am judging them for suspected AI-use.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda points would be: Thesis, Evidence and Elaboration. While reading I felt that a lot of the paper was blanket statements without a specific goal or objective. My goal in this situation would be to get the writer to use more of their own voice, and show what they know. I would prompt the writer to think of their thesis as a "road map" and as a way to explicitly set out what they plan to discuss. Next would be to express how I didn't notice any evidence or citations. Since this is a research based paper, evidence would be a great opportunity to propel forward the objective once it was been established. As a next step I would ask the writer to brain storm or note their responses to evidence that way more of the writers voice is in the work.

# data[].attributes.body
When approaching this document - I think it would be important for me to account for the likelihood that this was AI generated - but also that an appointment letter or feedback that accuses them could have a negative effect. My agenda items would be aimed to encourage work outside of AI, such as specificity, organization and citations. For specificity, not only would I encourage use of evidence, but also elaboration - writing that shows clear thought process and opinion on this matter. Organization would address the bullet point style - as this style of essay usually isn’t in accordance with any style. AI has a known problem with citations - so I’d be sure to ask them about the resources they used - and to cite everything properly and accurately.

# data[].attributes.body
First I would address essay structure. This is a global edit that addresses that their paper is broken down into essentially a bulleted list, which I assume their professor does not want. I would also address the general flow of ideas, mainly transitioning from one idea to the next. Lastly, the classic expansion will be needed because they have statements and no explanation, sources, evidence, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
My main agenda points would be organization, flow, and style. My feedback would include finding ways to make their writing more put together. I would recommended not using number bullet points as it disrupts the flow of the paper. Instead, suggesting written paragraphs and useage of transition words, topic sentences, etc. to allow for the different ideas to connect smoothly. I would encourage adding more personalization to their writing: switching up sentence length, sentence structure, rhetorical devices, similies and metaphors, etc. Overall, helping the writer make the writing easier to read, follow along, and more unique.

# data[].attributes.body
We try to avoid 'calling out' writers when it comes to AI use and I would definitely avoid doing so here. I would think that this paper is suspect but also a potential jumping off point for writing their paper. Because this is more of a list I would likely focus on agendas like Structure to suggest forming this into an appropriate format based on the professors expectations. The information itself is slightly unspecific, and I would use their prompt to suggest Expansion or Analysis. If I were to receive this paper, I would not necessarily assume that they are intending to turn it in as is- but I think it could be a good opportunity to talk about writing strategies in general and ways to continue writing after an outline.

# data[].attributes.body
The agenda items I would use to guide my written feedback for this piece would likely be citations and repetition.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items for this written feedback would be organization and evidence. My biggest suggestion would be to transfer the list of topics into separate paragraphs to allow for the readability of this paper to be a little bit stronger. With that, I would also suggest that the writer dives into a big more evidence or even analysis of their work. The writing seems very surface level and full of facts/statements, which is great, but does not really tell us the "why" behind the importance of ethics in the health care system. By focusing on incorporating these two agenda points into their paper, the overall flow and readability would not only be improved, but it would also allow the reader to incorporate their own voice into the paper making it more effective and their argument strong.

# data[].attributes.body
I would probably make organization and argument the two agenda items of a Written Feedback for this student. I think the overly generic language and repetitive nature is not allowing the student to fully flesh out their claim. I also think it would encourage them to think more critically which would in turn lift the word count because it is not meeting the requirement as of this draft. I also think that this essay should probably be in a more traditional format with more sources to continue to puff up the piece and bolden their thesis and not suggest the use of AI (even though I would not mention this to the student). I would encourage the student to perhaps use the points as a jumping off point for a full paper, and then apply their own knowledge/research/sources to round out the assignment.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would focus on Organization, Syntax, and Analysis. Based on the tone, analysis, and organization of the essay. The analysis of the essay could be a bit stronger, especially because there are no sources cited to reinforce the arguments. I actually think this writing piece is AI-generated. However, I would not accuse the writer of doing so because it's not our job as peer tutors to do this. Instead, I would focus on giving thorough feedback that can show the limitations of using AI for writing the paper.

# data[].attributes.body
The bullet points and subheading names make the draft seem to be generated by AI, yet I would not mention it in my appointment letter. If it was a F2F or ORT appointment, I would have a small reminder for them to double-check the AI policy of their instructor at the very end of the meeting. Regarding the agenda items, I would choose (1) thesis and (2) evidence. For thesis, by rewriting the thesis, including their claim and supporting reasons, the writer would be more mindful of the main ideas that should be discussed in the essay, instead of listing an overwhelming number of sub-ideas in their body paragraphs and not mentioning any of them in the opening or conclusion paragraph. For evidence, the writer needs to provide concrete examples, either their own experience or citing someone else's. This is one of the requirements of the promt. By doing this, their writing would be more authentic.

# data[].attributes.body
Although this text feels distinctly written by AI, I would not mention my suspicions in my appointment letter. For papers that seem generated by an outside source, I would focus on the content and structure, as well as adherence to the prompt. For this work specifically, I believe that I would focus on evidence, particularly evidence from cited sources. I know this is something that their professor is most likely looking for in their essay, and it would help make the piece more effective. I would also focus on the clarity of the essay, and highlight sentences that feel overly formal, confusing, or generalized. Following this direction for my feedback would allow me to focus on the words chosen/used in their essay, without directly stating that their sentences feel like they are generated by AI.

# data[].attributes.body
After carefully reading over the draft, I would have likely believed this writer used generative AI to write this paper. However, I am responsible for addressing aspects of any given draft that could be revised to better convey the writer's purpose. For this draft, my agenda items would be evidence and format. I noticed no outside sources were used in this draft, so I would comment on points that could use evidence. Additionally, I would also provide a resource to a citation site. If there was not a specific citation stated, I would add a broader resource on citations and ask the writer what citation style their professor prefers. Regarding their formatting, I would point out their use of a numbered list rather than individual paragraphs. In the letter and marginal comments, I would detail why each point should have its own paragraph. I could attach a resource to formatting based on citation style or general style formatting. As I wrote the marginal comments and appointment letter, I would write without any indication I suspected AI use.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would be repetition, evidence, and organization. I would primarily point out that they repeat their points several times, often simply changing the sentence but essentially expressing the same meaning. This can be detrimental to producing a coherent and clear essay, so it would be important for them to go back and excise or re-structure some of their sentences. Then, I would ask them to check against their syllabus to see if their professor asks for evidence and/or cited work to back up their claims, and recommend they include that if so. Finally, I would suggest they also check if they are structuring/organizing their paper per the requirements, as this looks more like an outline to be expanded than a finalized essay.

# data[].attributes.body
I would focus on structure, elaboration, and evidence. Assuming the prompt does not ask for a list format, structuring with body paragraphs as opposed to lists might match their prompt or the genre conventions more. The ideas are also fairly disconnected from each other because of the list structure. Since the essay is about the importance of ethics in the healthcare system, but they repeat the same ideas (without elaborating on why), prompting specific elaboration with guiding questions (such as "what are the ethical standards?"). Providing evidence through either information from class or examples of each category could also further flesh out their claim and connect their ideas. My overall goal would be to help them specify their ideas and connect everything together, because it is vague and a little disconnected.

# data[].attributes.body
For my agenda points, I would address organization and repetition. I would suggest that the writer use a more typical paragraph format for their piece rather than the current list. I would also suggest that they consolidate their points more in order to stop repeating information in their writing. To do this, I would suggest an activity such as a reverse outline. While there are things that point to this paper being AI generated, I would not mention it to the writer or in their appointment letter. Instead, I would point out the issues in their writing and direct them how to fix it by themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
One of my agenda items would be structure, as the body is written in a list format rather than that of a traditional essay, which I assume is the purpose of the assignment. I would encourage the writer during revisions to take the ideas and write them as general paragraphs with introduction and transition sentences added to create a more cohesive and smooth reading experience. Along similar lines, I would also add citations to my agenda and encourage the writer to cite the sources they got the included information from. I would emphasize the importance of this as it adds to the writer’s credibility and strengthens their overall argument. Lastly, I would include repetition, specifically drawing attention to the first topic of “Patient Welfare” as an example, using the repeated use of the term “well-being” to highlight my feedback. I would encourage the writer to look up synonyms or suggest altering their sentence structure to mitigate the repetition and make the reading experience more engaging.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite feeling strongly that this piece of writing was produced by AI, I would avoid mentioning it at all in the appointment letter just in case it may be accessed by their professor. My agender items would likely be broad such as formatting, structure, and elaboration. I might say that their draft seems to be formatted a bit like an outline and encourage them to switch to paragraph use rather than being numbered. I would also remind them to check their professor's format requirements regarding margins, font, spacing, and citation style. Finally, I would encourage elaboration in each paragraph such as including transitions to smooth out the structure and including more reasoning behind the information they provided and it all connects.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda items would be:

Repetition – encouraging the writer to vary vocabulary, syntax, and sentence length.

Specificity – Providing examples for every general statement, and relating generalities to their class readings and personal research

Organization – I would encourage an outline that reads more like an essay which develops ideas, rather than a pile of information

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that my agenda points for this particular essay would be usage of intentional prose, sources, and specificity.

In terms of intentional prose, one thing that often is found in Generative AI writing is a tendency to use "academic" sounding language, that describes the writing, but doesn't really have any tone of voice or personality behind it. In the first paragraph, the thesis statement, "This essay delves into the importance of ethics in the healthcare system and underscores why maintaining ethical standards is indispensable for the well-being of society," is a good example of this type of writing. I might suggest that the writer make sure that words such as "delves", "underscores," and "indispensable" are accurate to what they are trying to convey here, and remind them that even in academic writing, it is always important to write as if your audience knows nothing about your topic of paper.

For sources, I noticed that although the writer listed out 6 reasons why maintaining ethical standards in healthcare is important, there are no sources or in-text citations utilized. I would perhaps suggest finding scholarly, peer-reviewed sources to back up their claims and provide evidence.

For specificity, I noticed that although each point outlines the ethical dilemmas that come up in healthcare, there are no direct examples of how this situation might realistically come up. I would perhaps say to add a bit more of a personal lens to the paper (after all, at the beginning of the paper the author underscores the personal effects on people all across the world.)

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda points would be structure, expansion, and citation. I would encourage them to structure their argument using a more specific thesis and combine their topics more efficiently. While I think the topic sentences are strong, I would then encourage them to expand on their points. By developing a more academic structure, they could fully explain their points and connect them more thoroughly. I feel that their conclusion might not be bringing everything together as effectively as they could. Then, by adding citations, they could bring credible evidence to their argument. More than just the mechanics of citing sources, they could bring in some statistics or examples of ethics, or lack of, in healthcare. I would not mention their AI usage although I would stress a dramatic shift in their writing.

# data[].attributes.body
Whether or not AI was used in the creation of this writing/if I suspect that, I won't bring attention to it in the appointment letter, because that would not help the student in any way, only get them in trouble. Instead, I would try to give constructive criticism to make the weaker aspects of the paper stronger. This would maybe help the writer understand what the drawbacks of AI generated writing is, without causing conflict for them academically. I would discuss specifically-flow, structure, and citations. The writing is a bit repetitive, and doesn't necessarily deeply explore concepts it introduces. I would give detailed instructions on how to cite sources, as well as direct them to resources on where to find sources/citation styles.

# data[].attributes.body
My agenda points would be formatting, prompt adherence, and examples. I think the format of this paper suggests that the paper is AI generated, and I would point this out by acknowledging that this essay should be in prose, not bullet points. This goes along with prompt adherence, which I would tie back to the rubric to point out how this is a weaker submission to the assignment. Finally, the prompt said to use examples, which are vague in this paper. I would suggest building on examples. These things hopefully point out the AI is not an effective tool for writing essays.