Critique #3 Postmortem

Critique #3 was allot easier than the previous critiques. The subject that was being discussed was allot shorter to go over and did not require too much work to investigate and analyze. The two previous critiques analyzed two articles, while this critique analyzed faulty instructions. I did make some changes to the draft that I prepared to turn in on Tuesday. I reread it and added more in-depth discussion in the response section, and I rewrote the response part of the executive summary section. I made the changes because I thought that less discussion on my response needed to be in the executive overview, and more discussion of my response needed to be in the actual response section. I also thought that the detailed overview needed to be the same length as the response, like in the previous critiques, and I simplified my response in the first draft to accommodate that requirement. I started this assignment on sunday and finished it on sunday. The time frame for this paper was allot shorter than on other papers due to the complexity of the assignment. The topic that the critique discussed was not more complex than the previous topics and therefore required less time to organize my thoughts and write the paper. The main thing that surprised me about this writing assignment was how short the detailed summary was. The detailed summary was small due to the lack of instructions provided, and therefore that was the easiest part about the writing assignment. Usually the detailed summary is one of the harder parts of the critique because it requires the condensing of what the paper assignment discusses, but in this case it was different. The hardest part was organizing my response and condensing it to fit on one page. I would tell someone attempting this assignment to be open-minded about it and be organized when writing it.