Health Sciences- Marijuana

Health Sciences- Marijuana

Peer review
think you have made a great argument in this paper! I am just a bit confused by the conclusion vs. the introduction… are you talking about both medical and recreational marijuana? I also saw some minor grammatical/wording things, so I went through and hightlighted the little things in red.

To be more specific to the peer review criteria:

1. The main argument is that marijuana should be legalized and monitored. This will provide an array of health and financial benefits with limited risks.

2. The main argument was presented well, although I believe a distinction between medical and recreational use should be further clarified in the beginning.

3. You did an excellent job with intext citations to back up your information and your bibliography looks great.

4/5. You very clearly stated the opposing argument and followed that with an well supported rebuttal.

6. The biggest strength is the amount of information you provide from credible, existing research.

7. I believe all of the information presented is important to your argument, however, you do get repetitive in a few paragraphs.

8. The main question you have not answered is how the strains vary and what impact that will have on the legal dispensing of marijuana. You mention that some strains are more impairing than others, would those be banned?

9. The organization is extraordinarily clear.

10. I have noted in the reviewed document where the writing is unclear or vague.

11. I believe this satisfies the requirements, but some grammatical and wordiness errors need to be addressed.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT πŸ™‚

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *