After a criticism, this paragraph concedes that the issue Reese raises is important.

Center-right, business-friendly animal rights advocacy. It's becoming clear that the reviewer is highly skeptical of Reese's high opinion of entrepreneurs as solvers of ethical problems.

This paragraph gives a brief overview of Reese's background, and describes how he has gone about establishing his animal rights bona fides. There's just a hint of sarcasm that comes through primarily in the sentence about Reese's pet chickens.

These details, as well as Scutter's tone, constitute the first hint we get that this may not be an all together favorable review.

Stressing Wu's thesis, anti-trust seeks to address the danger consolidated economic power poses to democracy.

The review's one criticism: that Wu omits the role of the courts from his analysis.

Louis Brandies (November 13, 1856 – October 5, 1941): staunchly anti-trust supreme court justice.

This passage summarizes Wu's central position; namely, that a narrow understanding of anti-trust is wrong. Anti-trust, Wu argues, has always "included preserving conditions for democracy."

This paragraph clearly puts Wu at odds with Bork, the Chicago School, etc.

Gives a sense of what the book is and isn't. And provides a helpful way of thinking about its argument/approach.

Also, this paragraph helps open up the book's potential readership. It's "neither an academic book nor a policy brief."

Notice how the first three paragraphs work: P1 establishes conglomerate dominance, P2 shows that economic thinking of the 1970s played a huge role in setting the playing field for the rise of conglomerates, and P3 shows how more recent thinking has emerged by way of the neo-Brandeisians.

This goes to Sitaraman's efforts to situate Wu's book. We're living in a moment of conglomerate dominance-- monopolies are everywhere.

P9 and 10 show how monopolies were linked to authoritarianism, and that New Dealers had a role in shaping post-war European views on Anti-Trust.

The book's major failing is its dispassionate approach. Note how Riederer directs readers to another, better book on the same subject.

Another concession.

First concrete criticism: the book's tone is too cold and mathematical to appeal to an audience.

Marketing--persuading people to eat meatless meat or lab-grown meat.

A brief overview of tissue culturing, presumably drawn from Reese's book.

This paragraph shows how Reese's advocacy fits into the larger context of meatless tech as a response to concerns about meat production.

The end of this paragraph succinctly sums up Reese's argument: the future of meat production will not involve harming animals.

This sentence ties the opening anecdote to the argument of Reese's book.

Note how review begins with an anecdote re: lab-grown meat, rather than soy-based meatless meat.

We've talked about the importance of anticipating objections when writing all three of our previous assignments. WP2-B is no exception. Addressing likely objections helps you rhetorically, as it shows you're paying attention to what others say, not just to what you happen to think.

I would prefer the word "persuade" to "inform." When informing readers, one doesn't necessarily have to make an argument. But op-eds are all about argument. So, aim to do more than inform. Persuade your readers to accept your argument.

This! Please avoid turning your op-ed into a rant. Be civil, and give credit where it's due. Pointing out how stupid you think other people are isn't exactly a surefire way to cultivate credibility.