Kristen Reilly successfully demonstrates the meaning of a concussion, its testing and research, but lacks an interview between her and a patient who went through “innovate treatments”. She organizes her essay well by starting off talking about her concussion experience. She then talks about her classmate’s experiences and finally Professor Clark Elliott’s eight-year concussion experience. In between each experience she adds in facts and research done by professionals. This connects the audience to solid evidence to represent how common concussions are. Although her paper is written well, she fails to interview anyone who went through the “innovate treatment”. She talks about how Clark Elliott's case was successful and was treated by Dr. Perrine. …show more content…
She talks a lot about one patient’s, Clark Elliott, experience and briefly talks about how the treatments helped other patients. She takes sections from his book, The Ghost in My Brain: How a Concussion Stole My Life. She goes on to talk about how Dr. Markus treated Clark and how her “assessment of Elliott’s symptoms allowed her to tailor the program to fit Elliott’s specific needs (Reilly).” She does take good parts from his book to guide the reader to understand how Elliott faced obstacles and challenges, but she never interviews him or someone who was treated with this new, innovative treatment. She then brings up another doctor named Deborah Zelinsky and nurse Anita Saltmarche. Then, she says that they both researched light therapy and how they both had come to the conclusion that it helps heal traumatic brain injuries. “She also used light therapy to treat a patient that suffered a concussion after a minor car accident (Reilly).” This would have been a perfect place to insert an interview that she has done herself but she fails to do so. If she interviewed at least one person that was affected by innovative treatment, her writing would be more complete and the reader could connect to the interviewee. She has an abundant amount of research from articles and specialist but never interviewed patients who benefited from the new innovative