diff --git a/Secciones/problem_solution.tex b/Secciones/problem_solution.tex
index c9cda1d..e99c8b5 100644
--- a/Secciones/problem_solution.tex
+++ b/Secciones/problem_solution.tex
@@ -112,13 +112,13 @@ If the edge is not present, all inner unconditional jumps and their containing s
 
 \subsection{\josep{Problem 2: }Unnecessary instructions in weak slicing}
 
-In the context of weak slicing, as it is not necessary to behave exactly like the original program. This means that some statements may be removed, even if it means that a loop will become infinite, or an exception will not be caught. The following example describes a specific example which is generalized later in this section.
+\josep{Esta frase esta mal construida}In the context of weak slicing, as it is not necessary to behave exactly like the original program. This means that some statements may be removed, even if it means that a loop will become infinite, or an exception will not be caught. The following example describes a specific example which is generalized later in this section.
 
 \begin{example}[Unnecessary unconditional jumps]
 	\label{exa:problem-break-weak}
 	Consider the code for method \texttt{g} on figure~\ref{fig:problem-break-weak-code}, which features a simple loop with a \texttt{break} statement within. The slice in the middle has been created with respect to the criterion (line 6, variable \texttt{x}), and includes everything except the print statement. This seems correct, as the presence of lines 4 and 5 determine the number of times line 6 is executed.
 
-	However, if you consider weak slicing, instead of strong slicing; the loop's termination stops mattering, lines 4 and 5 are no longer relevant. Without them, the slices produces an infinite list natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...), but as that is a prefix of the original program ---which outputs the numbers 0 to 9--- the program is still a valid slice (pictured on figure~\ref{fig:problem-break-weak-code}'s right side).
+	However, if \josep{one considers\deleted{you consider}} weak slicing, instead of strong slicing; the loop's termination stops mattering, lines 4 and 5 are no longer relevant. Without them, the slices produce\josep{\deleted{s}} an infinite list \josep{of} natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...), but as that is a prefix \josep{suena raro que una lista infinita sea un prefijo de 0-9, mas bien es al reves}of the original program ---which outputs the numbers 0 to 9--- the program is still a valid slice (pictured on figure~\ref{fig:problem-break-weak-code}'s right side).
 
 	Note that the removal of lines 4 and 5 is only possible if there are no statements in the slice after the \texttt{while} statement. If the slicing criterion is line 8, variable \texttt{x}, lines 4 and 5 are required to print the value, as without them, the program would loop indefinitely and never execute line 8.
 
@@ -173,11 +173,13 @@ Therefore, a forward jump $j$ (e.g., \texttt{break}, \texttt{return [value]}, \t
 
 As with the previous error, the problem is not the inclusion of the jump and its controlling conditional instruction, but the inclusion of the data dependencies of the condition guarding the execution of the jump.
 
-\subsubsection*{Proposal}
+\subsubsection*{\josep{\deleted{Proposal}A solution for the unnecessary instructions in weak slicing}}
 
-This problem cannot be easily solved, as it is a ``dynamic'' one, requiring information about the completed slice before allowing the removal of unconditional jumps and their dependencies. This means that the cost of this proposal can not be offloaded to the creation of the SDG as with the previous one.
+This problem cannot be easily solved, as it is a ``dynamic'' one, requiring information about the completed slice before allowing the removal of unconditional jumps and their dependencies. This means that the cost of this proposal \josep{cannot\deleted{can not}} be offloaded to the creation of the SDG as with the previous one.
 
-Our proposal revolves around temporarily remove edges from the SDG: given an SDG of the form $G = \langle N, E_c, E_d, E_{in}, E_{out}, E_{fc} \rangle$, remove from $E_c$ any edge of the form $x \ctrldep y | x, y \in N$, where $x$ is an unconditional forward jump; perform the slice normally; and then ---if there is any statement after the destination of $x$ in the slice--- restore the edges removed in the first step and recompute the slice. The slice would still be linear, because each node would be visited at most once; but the algorithm has a higher complexity, and the removal and restoration of the control edges has a cost; albeit small.
+\josep{frase incorrecta}Our proposal revolves around temporarily remove edges from the SDG: given an SDG of the form \josep{En la definicion de SDG salia esta sextupla?}$G = \langle N, E_c, E_d, E_{in}, E_{out}, E_{fc} \rangle$, remove from $E_c$ any edge of the form $x \ctrldep y | x, y \in N$, where $x$ is an unconditional forward jump; perform the slice normally; and then ---if there is any statement after the destination of $x$ in the slice--- restore the edges removed in the first step and recompute the slice. The slice would still be linear, because each node would be visited at most once; but the algorithm has a higher complexity, and the removal and restoration of the control edges has a cost; albeit small.
+
+\josep{pon a continuacion un ejemplo solucionando el problema}
 
 \section{The \texttt{try-catch} statement}