first peer review

Hey Lukas, Synthesis Paper : You do a good job with laying out the background to your topic in your introductory paragraph. You state the evolution of the problem of bribery in sports, which is beneficial to your reader's to understanding of the remainder of the conversation. One way to strengthen the introduction paragraph would be to integrate the direct quote of the second sentence cited as " (LawInfo par.3). " By integrating the quote into the conversation, instead of blatantly stating it, you will show that you have a deeper level of understanding of the conversation. In the second paragraph, there is an integrated quote that causes some confusion. Here is the particular sentence: “Although this is not something that will affect the outcome of a sporting event, “offer (ing) financial inducements to a student-athlete may be subject to criminal and civil penalties” (USLegal par.4).” The conversation you added to this quote leads me to believe that there is no possible way that outcomes of sporting events will be changed if players are given financial inducements. The confusion arises later in the paragraph when you talk about how bribery is considered as a method of “match-fixing.” If bribery is a form of financial inducements that alter outcomes of games, the commentary in the previous integrated quote is not accurate. One possible cause to the confusion is that you might have considered financial inducements as financial scholarships. In the second paragraph there is an awkward transition from talking about the 1919 World Series instance of bribery, and then talking about occurrences of bribery in college sports. In your inquiry path it seems like you talked about bribery in the professional arena more separate from college bribery. In order to bring about a smoother transition, I would try and focus on more instances of professional bribery, especially more recent ones. Including the instance of the 1919 World Series adds credibility to your argument, but your argument will seem more relevant if you expound upon bribery in professional sports.

Upload: wyatt-shely

Post on 30-Jan-2016

220 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Report

Download

Embed Size (px):

DESCRIPTION

First Peer Review

TRANSCRIPT

Hey Lukas,

Synthesis Paper:You do a good job with laying out the background to your topic in your introductory paragraph. You state the evolution of the problem of bribery in sports, which is beneficial to your reader's to understanding of the remainder of the conversation. One way to strengthen the introduction paragraph would be to integrate the direct quote of the second sentence cited as "(LawInfo par.3)." By integrating the quote into the conversation, instead of blatantly stating it, you will show that you have a deeper level of understanding of the conversation.

In the second paragraph, there is an integrated quote that causes some confusion. Here is the particular sentence: “Although this is not something that will affect the outcome of a sporting event, “offer (ing) financial inducements to a student-athlete may be subject to criminal and civil penalties” (USLegal par.4).” The conversation you added to this quote leads me to believe that there is no possible way that outcomes of sporting events will be changed if players are given financial inducements. The confusion arises later in the paragraph when you talk about how bribery is considered as a method of “match-fixing.” If bribery is a form of financial inducements that alter outcomes of games, the commentary in the previous integrated quote is not accurate. One possible cause to the confusion is that you might have considered financial inducements as financial scholarships.

In the second paragraph there is an awkward transition from talking about the 1919 World Series instance of bribery, and then talking about occurrences of bribery in college sports. In your inquiry path it seems like you talked about bribery in the professional arena more separate from college bribery. In order to bring about a smoother transition, I would try and focus on more instances of professional bribery, especially more recent ones. Including the instance of the 1919 World Series adds credibility to your argument, but your argument will seem more relevant if you expound upon bribery in professional sports. ***see the peer review of the inquiry path for an optional route to take in order to expand the conversation of bribery in professional sports

In the Prezi Inquiry Path review, I have noted a scandal involving FIFA officials that could help to expand your argument further than just about bribery involving players.