Memo

To: Professor Musselman From: Natalie Audelo CC: Ms. Mahmud Date: November 5, 2013 Re: Unit 1, Draft 1 Dear Professor Musselman, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to review my draft and provide constructive feedback. I took all of your suggestions into consideration during the revision process. My primary focus for the second draft was largely on sentence structure and continuity. I attempted to make the content concise and palatable by eliminating unnecessary words and providing transitions between sentences. I also reviewed various sections of my paper to ensure that I maintained a scholarly tone throughout. With regards to content, I added detail to various sections by providing more in-depth information. This helped me to more evenly distribute my sources throughout the paper. I also ensured that the content presented was accurately cited. With regards to your final suggestion, I moved forward with the creation of a discussion section and used this space to examine gaps in the field. I also edited the elements in the title and rearranged headings throughout the paper. Ms. Mahmud also provided valuable insights that helped guide my drafting process. I primarily focused on her suggestion to include more empirical evidence. While I felt that my paper was substantiated by large amounts of research, I recognized that there were gaps where more in-depth information could be provided. I spent much of the revision process re-reading my sources and distributing information as appropriate. She also suggested that I expand the neurological mechanism section. I combined the oxidative stress and inflammation sections (since they were interrelated) and added more detail about each mechanism listed. That being said, I did disagree with one of Ms. Mahmuds remarks that indicated that the paper lacked argument. The review lacked argument since it felt more biased towards a particular side. There was very little evidence of the other side.!Literature reviews highlight and present specific information in a given field of study. Therefore, the argumentative nature of literature reviews often goes unnoticed. Unlike a debate, there are not two sides. Ms. Mahmud also suggested that I use fewer numbers throughout the text since it interrupted the readers flow. However, the numbers indicate citations, and eliminating them would result in plagiarism. However, I did not take any of her remarks lightly and sincerely considered all of Ms. Mahmuds suggestions during the revision process. Again, I appreciate all the time and energy that both you and Ms. Mahmud took in reviewing my paper. The constructive criticism and input greatly contributed to the final product. Sincerely, Natalie Audelo!