Peer Response to Vika Brovarska's Definition Paragraph

Yuliya Kabanenko
Group#13

The extended definition of the “capital” by Vika Brovarska is logically organized and rather interesting for the reader. However, the definition does not have a form of a paragraph.
The topic sentence has a controlling idea, gives the notion of the term. But not everything was clear in this topic sentence. For example, it is not clear, what was meant by: “the capital is… work”. It is either inappropriate translation, or wrong selection of the word.
In supported sentences Vika informs about the forms and states of capital. But not everything was clear in these sentences. In particular the phrase: “… capital could be realized in separate peoples….”
There was no concluding sentence; that is why the paragraph does not have logical conclusion.
All the sentences make “additions” to the topic sentence. These sentences flow smoothly, but not everywhere the transit sentences were used.
There were some grammar mistakes in the paragraph. The first, after the term “capital” there should be not a dash (–), but the verb (is). The second, when writing about the forms of capital, the author wrote “his forms,” instead of “its.” The third, the phrase “capital could have not only materialized… ” To my opinion, there should be used the Present Simple: “capital can have not only materialized…”, because that refers not to the past, but to the present.
In a whole, the definition is informative, but has some unclearness and incompleteness, which should be corrected.