Peer review exercise # 4
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
289
On Slideshare
289
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1. What is the primary idea of the content in the articles? The primary idea of the content in the articles is how to ban the use of cell phones in cars. The articles is about to effective ban the use of cell phone. There is reasons for the primary idea of the content in the articles that is how to ban the use of cell phones in cars. 2. Do you think the individual sections and headings in the document (articles) clearly represent the idea that was communicated. Explain the reasons behind your comments. I think the individual sections and headings in the document (articles) clearly represent the idea that was communicated. Because this article is plain. The individual sections and heaings in this article found summary only sentence in this document. Thses is reason for banning cell phone use when driving. 3. What details are included in the articles? The details that included in one articles is for step1 to step5. For step1 to step5 is the order of how to ban the use of cell phones in cars. The details that included in another one articles is driving distracted, consequences, know before you go. 4. Was there anything that was confusing? If so, what is it? No, there was not. Especially, none. I think there was anything that was confusing. This documents written consistently danger about how to use of cell phones in cars. And the reason is steady. I think this document is not sense of incompatibility for these reasons. 5. What is good about the writing? Why is it good? I think that the good point is thing that this document divided the reason and the content. The reason is thing that the reading people is easy understand the writting contet in the document. And the reading people is easy understand the writting reason in the document. 6. Are there any errors that need to be corrected? No, there are not. Especially, none. I think there are any errors that need to be corrected. This documents written consistently danger about how to use of cell phones in cars. And the reason is steady. I think this document is not sense of incompatibility for these reasons. 7. What specific suggestions for improving the articles can you make? No, I can not. Especially, none. I think there are any errors that need to be corrected. This documents written consistently danger about how to use of cell phones in cars. And the reason is steady. I think this document is not sense of incompatibility for these reasons. Because no problem, I am not necessary to improve the document. 8. Identify three basic differences between how your group would author a similar document and how this author authored it (as you see it in the link). The first basic differences between our group and this author is composition of the document. For example, this author divides the reasons and the contents. The second basic differences between our group and this author is thing that plainly of sentences. The last basic differences between our group and this author is thing that easiness of sentences to see.