Dear Jackie,

Your paper orients us to the text, observes salient evidence, and offers judgment on its function.
Your paper emphasizes the modes by which the text fits into and acts upon the expectations of the
specific community of neurologists. Good.

Lets push the specificity of judgment on specific evidence and the articulation of the thick logic
behind judgment. For example, on page 3, your paper observes how the text primes it audience to
expect further research. How does it do this, precisely? What is the very language of this function? Is it
the phrase promising results? If so, how is it determined what is promising and what isnt? Is
something measured? What do the measurements have to show in order to be promising (5%
improvement? 50%?). And given such specific operations in the discourse of this text, how is your own
entrance into the discourse community of neurologists influenced? Will you see the promise of results in
this fashion? Will you know such promise when you see it? How?

This is not to say that these are the matters to pursue; rather this is to suggest specific
possibilities for pushing the specificity of analytical judgment and penetration of the discourse at work in
this writing.

I hope these comments are specific, rigorous, unmysterious, and encouraging to your writing.

Yours,

Tom Akbari