Reviews I received

1. Rate this paper’s overall readabilty
   5 of 5
2. At which point did you feel most interested by this piece? When least? Explain.
   While reading it the part that had me the most interested was when talking about how doctors viewed hysteric patients differently. It was interesting because she brought up Breuer another doctor. The least interesting part for me was towards the end. I feel like maybe there could be a better quote for (Freud 16).
3. How smoothly does this paragraph integrate examples into its own argument? Does it clearly illustrate connections between the evidence it cites and the ideas they support, or does it merely assume them? Explain.
   This paragraph doesn’t have a clear and understandable connection to the evidence. The evidence is not relevant to the sentence before it.
4. How effective was the writer’s use of language?
   3 of 5
5. Scan and spot the paper for the any of the following problems: colloquialisms, informality, clichés, and wordiness. Give a few examples of these problems, if they exist.
   when you write they or his you should write the name of the person you are talking about instead.
6. Could the writer of this paper have omitted certain passages to make this paper more concise? If yes, which ones?
   Yes the last 6 words could be hysteria patients go through alone.Also when you write “unreasonable and harsh perspective on hysteria because they did not understand it or know” you could write ” unreasonable and harsh perspective on hysteria because doctors weren’t able to comprehend the situation nor the science.
7. Have any outside sources (other than those required on essay prompt) been consulted?
   No
8. Have summaries, paraphrases, and direct quotes been cited correctly according to MLA standards?
   Yes
9. Do the MLA in-text citations include the correct author’s name and page number (Freud 12)?
   Yes
10. Does the topic sentence introduce paragraph’s main argument?
    1 of 2
11. Does this paragraph have enough movement?
    2 of 2
12. Indentify evidence and then its accomplaning analysis in this paragraph.
    “such a theory could only be a child of his speculation and could not be the fruit of an unprejudiced examination of the facts”(Freud16)Breuer’s theory fails to throughly and accurately define hysteria because of his bias and preconception of what individuals with hysteria struggle and face.