The document discusses the dangers of using cell phones while driving. It provides details on laws and guidelines around cell phone use and driving in different states. The sections are clearly organized and easy to understand, discussing the issues, specific state laws, and effects of distracted driving. The writing is clear without errors and provides helpful explanations of the topics. Improvements could include adding more headings to one section for better organization.

1. 1. What is the primary idea of the content in the articles?
the primary idea of the content in the articles is that to use cell-phone while driving is very danger. Some
state of America ban that to use cell-phone while driving. It is very good for us to ban that to use cell-
phone while driving because accident on the road of above reasons decrease and we can lead a peace life.
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 that the individual sections and headings in the document clearly represent the idea that was
communicated because I think two reasons.
First, sentences of Nancy Kerstetter and headings are correspond and It is good for me to read.
Second, sentences of Amanda C. Kooser was written detail information of this problem.
Above reasons, I think that the individual sections and headings in the document clearly represent the
idea that was communicated.
3. What details are included in the articles?
Sentences of Amanda C. Kooser was written hands-free, specific guidelines for the use of cell phones
while driving, rules and application.
Some state of America accept hands-free. Specific guidelines is that define roles when use cell-
phone. Application is that restrict function of cell-phone.
Sentences of Nancy Kerstetter was written process of this problem.
First, sentence was written law of driving.
Second, sentence was written driving distracted.
Third, sentence was written effect.
Finally, sentence was written information of regulation.
4. Was there anything that was confusing? If so, what is it?
I was not confusing because this document is very easy for me to read.
Sentences of Nancy Kerstetter was separated content of explanation. It is very good for me to read and
understand this sentence. Sentences of Amanda C. Kooser was written detail information of this
problem. It is very good for me to understand dangerousness of this problem.
5. What is good about the writing? Why is it good?
I wrote even the above, I think that good points are two.
First, sentences of Nancy Kerstetter were separated content of explanation. It is very good for me to read
and understand this sentence.
Second, sentences of Amanda C. Kooser was written detail information of this problem. It is very good
for me to understand dangerousness of this problem.
6. Are there any errors that need to be corrected?
For the feeling that I read, I think that there was not the mistake of the word and grammatically. I think
that it is good for me to read sentences of Nancy Kerstetter and Amanda C. Kooser because words that
were used those sentences is easy for me to read and understand this sentences.
7. What specific suggestions for improving the articles can you make?

2. I think that I can improve sentences of Amanda C. Kooser. Sentences of Amanda C. Kooser were not
written headings. I think that it is bad to understand those sentences. I think that if sentences are written
headings, it is good for viewer to read and understand.
Above reason, I think that I improve sentences of Amanda C. Kooser.
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).
First,the document of those websites are very easy to understand because those document are clear. I
think that the document that was written by our group is not easy to understand.
Second, the document of website was written correct headings. It is very good for me to read and
understand this document.
Third, sentences were separated content of explanation.