A. Provide the full citation of the Smith and Pell (2003) article at the top of your paper. Choose one citation style for both papers. I suggest American Anthropologist style, but we will accept others. Then answer the following: 1) What is the big-picture question (i.e., theoretical) the article addresses? (~3 sentences) This question is not necessarily the specific question the study is designed to answer or hypothesis the authors are trying to test. Instead, it is a broader question that researchers in the field are grappling to understand? Why is this question interesting and important? 2) Summarize the key background information. (~5 sentences) What is already known about the question that the paper addresses? What are the gaps in our knowledge? Are there problems with the previous research? What do the authors argue needs to be done to fill these holes or address these problems? 3) What is the particular question (or questions) the authors seek to answer or the hypothesis/ hypotheses they intend to test? (~2 sentences) 4) How do the authors attempt to answer these questions? What is the study design? What data are collected? How do the authors analyze these data? Do your best to be as clear and concise as possible. 5) What are the results of the study? (~3 sentences) Summarize the main results of the article. 6) Summarize the authors’ discussion of their results. (~4 sentences) What do they claim their results mean? 7) What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the study? (~6 sentences) Specifically, address at least one of each. 8) Do you think that the study answers the specific questions the authors wanted to address? (~6 sentences) If not, why? What do you think their results mean in the context of the big-picture theoretical question the authors are interested in? 9) Do you agree with the authors’ interpretation of their results? (~6 sentences) Why or why not? If you disagree, what additional data or experiments do you want to see? If you agree, what is the next study the researchers should do to either strengthen or extend their findings? B. REPEAT the same questions in A for the Crawford et al. (2020) article. Both of your reviews should be within one standard deviation of 750±250 words (500–1000 words each). Do not skimp, but don’t inflate. Be succinct. C. Lastly, in one to two sentences, answer one of the following questions: Should we eschew the use of parachutes until further testing into their efficacy is assessed? OR Should the work of Crawford et al. (2020) go towards human trials of the effect of environmental enhancement of driving ability?