This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: CRT 205 WEEK 3 DAY 4 CHECKPOINT PEER REVIEW BERNAL The response that I reviewed from one of my peers was well written. After reading their response, I felt that this person did a decent job describing the claims from the article. However, from the article I was unable to establish the claims of the host from Comedy Central. From the article I am assuming that the host had an opposing view from the scientist. I think this student did a great job of comparing the claims against his or her own observation. This person clearly expressed that they do not agree with the claims the scientist is making. I had a difficult time determining what this student intended the background information to be. In my response to a claim I read about, I used the small details provided for background information, such as the suspect’s age. I believe this student made the proper assessment about the judgment of the other; he or she stated why the author was qualified to make claims. For the feedback and peer review I used to concept of direct. Even though there was not a specific question form, feedback and peer review I used to concept of direct....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 11/28/2010 for the course CRT 205 crt 205 taught by Professor Darren during the Winter '10 term at University of Phoenix.
- Winter '10