Peer Review Checkpoint One critical thinking 205

Peer Review Checkpoint One critical thinking 205 - Peer...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Peer Review Checkpoint One Critical Thinking 130 Peer Review Checkpoint One University of Phoenix Mark Watson November 19, 2009 Wendy Leatherwood It appears that the claims in the article have been accurately identified by the writer. The writer identified the key claims in the article, doctor was driving while intoxicated, and charges have been upgraded. The claims made by the writer compared to my own personal observations conflict, it appears that the writer has formed a personal opinion based on emotions, rather than analyzing the data in the article. There lacks an analytical view by the writer throughout the review. The background information to the writer was not present for claims to be compared with; however there was background information in the article that could be used as comparison. There is a conflict between my comparison compared to the writers on the ground that statements have been made by the writer without analyzes, but based rather on personal belief of the writer.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 3

Peer Review Checkpoint One critical thinking 205 - Peer...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online