Which option best describes the need for a second reader to proofread?

• A. They can rewrite the conclusions to improve flow.
• B. They may catch errors that you missed.
• C. They can decide the report's purpose.
• D. They can shorten the time to publish.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that a second reader serves as fresh eyes to catch mistakes you might overlook. When you’ve been close to your own writing, small errors—typos, misused words, inconsistent terms, incorrect numbers, or unclear sentences—can slip through. A second reader, approaching the work with a new perspective, is more likely to spot these slips and flag them before the report goes out. This helps ensure accuracy, clarity, and credibility, which are especially important in corrections where precise information and proper reporting matter for safety and accountability.

Other options describe tasks that aren’t the primary purpose of proofreading. Rewriting the conclusions to improve flow is editing or revising content, not just proofreading for errors. Deciding the report’s purpose is part of planning and authoring, not the proofreading step. Shortening the time to publish would be about speed, whereas proofreading typically focuses on quality and correctness, even if it adds a bit of time.