Lab report peer review

PEER REVIEW QUESTIONS Question FEEDBACK: Yes, the paper sustains a coherent point of view. This is because the argument throughout the paper is presented in a flowing manner that also clearly brings out the logic under discussion. This is further sustained by a well maintained and supported thesis statement.
Question 2
FEEDBACK: The strength of this paper’s thesis is solid as the analysis of the unknowns 1, 2, and 3 based on the COSY and HECTOR data that is extremely adequate.
Question 3
FEEDBACK: Yes, the conclusion can be convincingly drawn from the thesis and argument made in paper’s body. For instance, the paper’s thesis sought to use 2D NMR COSY/HECTOR data in conjunction with H, C NMR and unknowns 1, 2 and 3 from which the conclusion after analyzing figure 1 based on the stated data reveals that unknown 1 is a 3-heptanone. In figure 2 the COSY and H NMR data for unknown 2 shows a structural representation known as 4-heptanone.
Question 4
FEEDBACK: Yes, there is a good transition between the paragraphs. The information flow from one paragraph leads to the analysis of the next one. Together, the paragraphs sustain an argument, for example, paragraph 1 that introduces the thesis statement is followed logically with paragraph 2 that analyzes unknown 1 to completion before introducing analysis of unknown 2 in paragraph 3.
Question 5
FEEDBACK: Yes. In determining the unknowns the illustration arrives at the conclusions soon before expounding the logic hence, not clearly elaborating the thesis.
Question 6
FEEDBACK: I feel that the paper relies on evidence as the ideal procedure for establishing the number of protons and carbons applied.
Question 7
FEEDBACK: There is a remarkably smooth integration of examples by the author into the argument. The connections between the evidence cited and the ideas supported are also quite clear. For instance, in each of the three cases of unknowns, the author illustrates the number of carbon/proton chains that produce the structure of the peaks that help in identifying the figures. The author supports the findings with appropriate figures.
Question 8
FEEDBACK: Very clearly through precise writing and maintaining high communication standards while addressing the topic therefore adding to the subject area’s knowledge/information base.
Question 9
FEEDBACK: The use of language is highly effective as it’s fluent, well organized and entailed proper use of grammar in subjecting the topic to analysis.
Question 10
FEEDBACK: The other problems are not spotted. Only clichés are used in the paper. Examples are “…in conjunction with…” in paragraph 1 and “…pentane chain which mirrors each side…” in paragraph 5 (Pavia, Pg 2).
Question 11
FEEDBACK: No, the writer needed not to omit any passage. A lot more needs to be added.
Question 12
FEEDBACK: Only the use of listing is recommended, for example, the chemicals can be listed in correspondence to the letters representing them.
Question 13
FEEDBACK: Yes, there is use of lower chemical names in the 1st line of page two where ‘ carbon’ is used instead of ‘ Carbon’ as well as in the 2nd line of 2nd paragraph.
Work cited
Pavia, Lampman and Kris, Introduction to Spectroscopy. 3rd Ed. Brooks: Cole, 2001