[Get Solution] Vascular Tissue in Carrot Shoot Apex

*Read the article attached and construct a summary and critique of the article selected. This is one paper. The instructions for each portion of the paper are provided below. If you have questions let me know. Summary instruction: The summary should be basically written following the format of a short essay. Imagine you were asked by another person to explain what the interview was about. The person asking should get a good idea of what the article was about after reading your summary. Because the paper is not an experimental science, please follow the instructions below: The first paragraph is the introduction: You have to include the main topic of the article, purpose, and address the main ideas (subtopics) or results discussed in the paper. This paragraph gives the reader a good idea of what comes next. You have to make sure to include the most relevant ideas or highlights of the paper. Second and following paragraphs are the body of your summary: Each paragraph should have a subtopic or idea and should describe and explain what the idea is about using no more than 4-6 sentences. Each sentence should be interconnected, in chronological order. The last paragraph is your conclusion paragraph: It should recapitulate the main topic and connect it with the take-home message. Remember, this is just a description and explanation of the interview article. You should not include your opinion yet, that is what the critique section is for.  Critique instructions: The critique is basically a one-page synthesis critiquing the article. It is generally written in chronological order commenting on each section of the article. Remember a critique is different from criticism. The nature of a critique is to give an unbiased opinion, reviewing the strengths or weaknesses of the article.  The main aspects of a critique include: Was the article written in an organized fashion? Did the author clearly state the main topic or idea, and the purpose of the article? Are the results or conclusions aligned with the ideas, problems, or questions being asked by the author at the beginning of the article? (For example, the title might suggest the article is about spiders, but the author may focus the article on human behavior or response to spiders) What was relevant and what was not relevant? In other words, what could you have removed from the article that would not have changed the end result? (For instance, some authors give too many details or information that is not essential or was not instrumental in determining the outcome or results in the article) How does the author’s opinion contrast with yours? Do you agree or disagree? If you do or you don’t you still have to explain why? And justify your answer as a follow-up statement. Your critique will be more powerful when you justify your agreement or disagreement statement based on other literature or reputable sources.