One part I found difficult on my first read of the article “Later” was the beginning about the procrastination example about the guy named Akerlof. When I was reading the beginning it felt hard to keep reading the rest of the article cause I kept wondering how this was gonna connect to the article. Throughout the article it does connect to it for sure it was just a long climax I found difficult wrapping my head around especially after the fire two paragraphs where it gets into fashionistas struggle with procrastination it basically gave my head a example and then lost me with more examples yet still getting the point if that makes sense. The second thing I found confusing is kinda the same as the first one I had with the article. After the fourth paragraph they talk about the origin of the word procrastination which made me more confused. It was like we went from one topic to the next from the examples of procrastination to the origin which was also difficult to read since the writer kept quoting stuff from the other articles they said that I have never read before. After I found my third issue I believe the main issue of the article for me is just that I am confused as I read it. It went from topic to topic while remaining in the procrastination topic. As seen from the first two issues, I had been confused with parts not clicking together as I read. I noticed how the article keeps doing this from talking about the examples, to then the statistics, the origin and then what others say and so on. Its hard to keep the whole article together when they aren’t really brought up again its like you gave me a bunch of toys connected to the same story yet having no mention of them again and the other stories they clearly can connect to this same story if that makes sense.
