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

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Peer review exercise # 4

144
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
144
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
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.