This document discusses two different websites. For the first site, the document states that the aim was clear, the site achieved its aim, and there are other similar sites. It also notes the site provides facts without bias and a date. For the second site, the document says the aim was unclear about describing or selling dehydrated water, the site did not achieve its unclear aim, and there are no similar concepts. It also notes the site claims benefits of dehydration but lacks dates or links to other sites. In conclusion, the first site is trusted but not the second.

1. There is no author listed
The aim is pretty clear
I think it pretty much got
what they aimed
Yes, there are different
websites with the same idea
26th April 2012
It is giving facts, not biased
opinions
It does not give links to other
websites with the same info
I kind of trust this site

2. There is no author listed
The aim isn’t very clear to
tell about dehydrated water
or to sell it
I don’t think the site gets its
aim since the aim isn’t clear
No there is no other concept
similar to that
No dates listed
Yes, it says that dehydrated
is good
It does not give links to other
websites with the same info
I don’t trust this site