Free 301 Quiz 3 Essay Sample
Q1-According to your readings, why is it critical during the first-level review to ensure that an intelligence report be consistent with previous analysis?
According to my observation, the first reviewer act as the supervisor of the original thing. This reviewer is perceived as the expert with high opportunity of getting close to the substance and so the writer banks all responsibilities on his shoulders of substantive accuracy. He is expected to basically focus on the content of the piece. This reviewer focuses on the most important three areas namely style, message and tradecraft. He does the editing to ensure the language is clear and that the substance on the piece flows logically. This should not be the case with the second and third reviewer as they should avoid being tempted to do this. This particular reviewer shares with next two levels the responsibility for clarifying the message. At this level one should get down to think and not to edit the piece.
Q2- Why is editing not the same as reviewing? Provide an example.
Editing and reviewing are two different things. Editing is a mechanical task that should be accomplished by first level reviewer or by staff. Review involves thinking; it is basically about questioning evidence and judgments. It focuses on the soundness of the analytic points that are being made and the quality of the supporting evidence. While editing is done by the first person to review the piece, reviewing is done by other two reviewers. Levels of review deals with ascertaining the quality of the piece and each level bears a different focus. The strength of the reviewing process is directly related to the different perspective that each level brings, with succeeding levels focusing on ever broader issues that are hard for the author and first line reviewer to see because they are close to the substance.
Q3 - What is the primary concern of the third-level reviewer?
The third level reviewer should basically be interested with two pairs of tradecraft issues. The number one concern should be clarity. Will those who are not experts understand the piece, and is it consistent with other work being done in the organization? The number two set is more difficult, and it goes to 'what if' questions. As an intelligent general reader, the reviewer in this level stands a better chance to ask 'dumb questions' that never would occur to the expert. The reviewer in this level should mostly focus on whether the right questions have been asked and what the variables are.
Q4- What are key variables? Why could changes in such key variables alter an assessment?
The variables act as drivers and casual link in the analysis, the 'if A, then B' part of the analysis. For example, the key variables in this case are United States and Iraq. The come very close to the assumptions but they are basically more evident. Most of the variables are not mentioned in the piece, especially if US actions are one, as they almost always are. A change in one of those variables alters the analysis and should help the analyst think through how it might change. Spelling out, discussing, and periodically revisiting what the analyst believes to be the key drivers and shapers of the issue are also the best ways to identify the underlying assumptions. In most cases the key variable is a strategic perspective as it may have been in the Saddam Hussein case.
Q5- Which reviewer has a broader perspective; the first-level reviewer or the third-level reviewer? Explain your answer.
The first reviewer is seen as the one with the wider perspective because comparing with the rest, he is seen as the most expert and closest to the substance, and therefore bears the greatest responsibility after the author for substantive accuracy of the piece. To begin with, he acts as the supervisor of the piece. He actually reviews the content of the piece. He looks basically into three major areas namely the style, message, and trade craft. He gives clarity to the piece ensuring that issues are flowing logically. This is not the case with second and third reviewer. The other two greatly relies on the first reviewer for clarity of the piece. These two should get into thinking business and not editing.
On the other hand, the third reviewer deals with the piece going by what the audience wants or has said. The interference with style and message is very minimal unlike the first reviewer. This is because he might end up mixing up the jargons. His focus should be whether the piece will be convincing to the audience. He actually is not very different from the second reviewer. The only value he adds at this level in the broader perspective in terms of reviewer's contact with a wider range of policymakers and an improved ability to see the forest for trees. The reviewer here goes through the trade craft questions in an attempt to know whether the audience knows or not. This brings the difference between these two with the first carrying the most responsibilities