Blog 4

The first criticism I read and agreed with was where the author's peer commented on the few amount of examples in the reading. With the examples needs to be details also, which were improved by the final draft. In the final version, the author not only provides characteristics he's obtained through experience, but his educational background; and in a smooth, informative, and persuasive manner. Where in the second paragraph he elaborates on his education it becomes even more convincing. He has taken many different courses that he describes painting a complete picture of his well-roundedness, whereas in the first draft he isn't as descriptive.
With the instructor's comments I totally agree with the augmentation of the first paragraph, where the author provides convincing evidence that he is ideal for the job opening. His logic needed to be more specific and more persuasive, and in the final draft this was possible. Then, with the criticism about the way he described his internship, the author changes the structure by the last draft. He doesn't go into much detail about the internship, which is where the instructor recommends he adds more about that experience. He adds the responsibility, team work, and hard work he had to learn during these internships. The exercise the author of the resume used to pin point his skills and experience seemed to help because the same information appears on the final draft. Using that exercise he was able to organize and describe all of his skills and experience. The brainstorming exercise didn't seem to serve as many purposes as the peer/instructor editing or the freewrites.