response to todd's chap 6 &7 writing

I chose to respond to Todd's writing because he very much got the same similar ideas from the chapters that I did. He brought up a good point how the guidelines try to get you to streamline your research but then also tells you to deepen and explore other areas. This was a catch i made as well. For chapter 7 we have the exact same argument about how it tells you to give your results up front and then follow with details. He agrees that in cases where the reader might respond negatively to the outcome it might be best to show the ground work leading up to that point so the reader has to read why it failed. This would be so that the reader could not make any acuzations about why the outcome is not what they would have liked.