Cheryl Joseph:
Although
this paper is meant to be a debate, I think your introduction is too
to-the-point, and could be approached more elegantly. The sentence that
suffers most from your debate-style approach is "Therefore, I propose
gothic-style architecture, similar to what I designed for the Texas
School of the Deaf, for the Main Building for several reasons." The
extra information provided in the clause about the Texas School of the
Deaf makes the sentence confusing. If you had a more eloquent opening,
you could include that information earlier.
-----------------
"First,
gothic architecture instills in students a connection with the history
and traditions of both the college and the world."
could be:
First, gothic architecture connects students with the traditions of their colleges and the history of the world.
---------------
"Conceptually, the architects and builders of gothic structures aspire to ¿impose ritual in the presence of a great company.¿"
Your
use of "conceptually" might not be right here. I think you meant to
indicate that the architects and builders inspire a certain concept.
Instead, you modify the subject with "conceptually," indicating that
you are talking about the architects and builders as a concept. For
example, "Conceptually, Math is very difficult". I think you can just
drop the adverb.
----------------
"God, however, is tied to creativity."
"However"
is not appropriate in the context of this sentence. You seem to want to
connect two ideas: that gothic architecture points to God, and that God
points to creativity. You should rewrite this sentence to indicate this
shift in your argument.
-------------
I think your paper
would benefit from a more rhetorical approach. Your style is very clear
and to-the-point, but i think it ultimately suffers from this cold
approach. Try to liven the paper with more conversational and eloquent
language.
Thomas Lopez:
This is a small revision:
"I examined the exhibit with the baby dinosaur drinking from a pond more closely."
"with"
should be "of". Also, you might want to say "I examined more closely
the exhibit..." or simply "I closely examined the exhibit..." so that
the adverbial modifier isn't as separated from the verb, which might
create some confusion.
---------
"In the water was some type of ancient alligator species."
You could make this more active by writing something like:
"Some type of ancient alligator species lurked in the water."
---------
I
noticed you used the phrase "couldn't help but" a few times. This is
the kind of phrase you can cut from your sentences. While it sounds
more conversational and informal, which may be the feel you're going
for, the added words can often detract from your overall clarity. And,
i think clarity should be prioritized.
Also, if you use a little imagination, other words can be used in place of this expression
---------
I
really liked your paper, T-Lo. Since I have to make a more general
suggestion, I guess I could suggest a question that you could address:
Science can give us "operative knowledge." So, in what ways does a
spiritual approach to nature give us fuller knowledge? If you want to
expand your paper at all, you could address the spiritual approach to
nature more fully.
Sharon Liao:
"The
claim that science is a rational branch of knowledge while spirituality
has to do with intangible qualities that touch us beyond knowledge may
strike some as contradictory, but in fact, the two are complimentary."
There should be a comma after "but" in order to set off the parenthetical phrase "in fact".
Also, I don't know if the claims themselves are contradictory, since you define a distinction between the two.
-------------
"Science and spirituality only come into conflict when specific theories are placed head to head and compared meticulously."
The
phrase "placed head to head and compared meticulously" can be replaced
and made more concise with "juxtaposed", which actually means precisely
the same thing.
--------------
In the second paragraph, I think you should take two things into consideration:
1)
You say that both creationists and scientists consider themselves
unreasonable. But, creationists don't make their claims based on reason
in the first place. They use revelation. I'm not saying this to argue
against your point. I just think you should define the distinction more
clearly.
2) I think you should not generalize when defining
"Christian". You say that Christians believe certain things, namely
creationism and intelligent design, when not all Christians do believe
this.
-------------
"One day to God is not a set amount of time, but it could possibly last several thousand years."
I
think the sentence would read better if you said "To God, one day is
not...". Also, the two clauses in this sentence should not be connected
with "but". Instead, you could write, "....of time, and could
possibly..."
------------
Your paper presented a few
arguments which supported both evolutionary theory and creationism.
However, I don't think they all supported your topic: that evolution
and a spiritual approach to nature are reconcilable. Maybe you should
craft each paragraph to stronger support your thesis.
Puja Parekh:
One
of the things I think you should consider while writing is active
voice. Many of your sentences are written in transitive, or passive,
voice, which detracts from the power of your paper. This sentence
provides an example:
"Many scientists are studying these
variations in the concentration of species in different geographical
areas, in a new field called biogeography."
Fixing the verb and reording this sentence can be useful:
Scientists in a new field, biogeography, study the variations of species concentrations in different geographical areas.
---------
Another
thing you should watch out for is redundant words. For example, "my
own" when simply "my" would do just as well. Also, you use "Mr. Darwin
and I both" when "both" should only be used as a pronoun to refer to
"Mr. Darwin and I" in subsequent sentences.
---------
Finally,
I think you should try to make your sentences more concise and
to-the-point. Wordiness only detracts from the clarity and power of
your writing, and prevents you from using more exact vocabulary. For
example, the sentence:
"My own research has the capacity to verify much of Mr. Darwin¿s hypothesis."
Might be written, simply:
My research verifies Mr. Darwin's hypothesis.
You lose nothing but words.
Much Love,
Brian
Vanessa Cooper:
"There
is a low buzz emanating from the large square court of the Oxford
University Museum of Natural History as scientists and philosophers
converse among themselves."
This sentence can be make more active and concise:
"A
low buzz emanates from the large square court of the Oxford University
Museum of Natural History as scientists and philosophers converse.
"among themselves" is implied by the verb "converse" which is from the Latin word conversari, meaning "to keep company with".
---------
"Stephen
Meyer looks up at the glass roof; outside the sky is growing darker by
the minute as the sun sets on ¿the city of dreaming spires.¿"
Again, the sentence can be more active:
Instead
of "outside the sky is growing darker" you can just say "the sky grows
darker" since the sky is by definition outside and "is going" is just
too transitive.
-------------
"He looks around, noting
the ornamentation of the stonework and cast-iron pillars; leaves,
branches, and other natural forms decorate the vast room, and statues
of prominent men of science stand around the court."
First, "He
looks around, noting the ornamentation..." can be said more consisely,
"He inspects the ornamentation...", which means precisely the same
thing. Second, i think that semicolon should be a period.
-----------
"Meyer then catches a glimpse of the statue of Darwin and is reminded of his reason for being here."
This sentence can be revised to be more active:
"A glimpse of Darwin's statue reminds Meyer of his reason for being here."
------------
"Though
there is probably no influence more pervasive in our society than
science, and though it has produced a revolution in human thought
unprecedented in history, science is not infallible."
Again, make this KICK:
"Though nothing pervades our society more than science, ..."
--------
For a direct quote spanning more than one paragraph, you must open each paragraph with quotation marks, but close only the last.
--------
I
noticed that you seemed to separate your paper into too many
paragraphs. Some ideas needed to be treated in one paragraph instead of
two or three. For example, the paragraph starting "These motors are
dependent..." should be connected to the one before. The same goes for
the paragraph beginning "Natural selection builds intricate...".
------
Finally,
I think some of your paragraphs could be expanded to provide more
complete arguments. I like how punchy some of the paragraphs are, but
they could often due with an extra sentence or two for clarity's sake.
Mita Lakhia:
The
second paragraph is somewhat confusing to me. When you say "... I
eventually chose to affirm due to one specific reason," I expect that
reason to be the next sentence. In fact, the reason isn't even in the
first paragraph. You could drop "due to one specific reason" to avoid
confusion.
----------
"First, in most cases the spiritual approach is basically constricted toward Christianity alone."
You
might want to replace the word "constricted" with another word. To be
honest, I'm not sure what you want to say here. Do you mean that only
Christians can take the spiritual approach, or that only Christians
find evolution to be contrary to the spiritual approach. I think you
should carefully define this idea since it is one of your main
arguments.
-------------
"During the time and in the place which I lived in the world approached such delicate topics from a different standpoint."
revision: In the time and place I lived, the world approached...
-----------------
Oxford
University stands for progression, which can only be achieved through
impartiality in education; therefore it is vital that we work to
further cement the line between faith and science.
A few things about this sentence:
1)
Where does Oxford come into the picture? You didn't explain Oxford's
relation to your argument. UPDATE: I just realized that you technically
are debating at Oxford, but I still think that should be stated so that
this particular sentence makes more sense.
2) "progression" should be "progress".
3) I think this should actually be two sentences.
----------------------
I
think your paper is structured nicely and would be great for a speech.
However the pure-debate style that you use does not present your
arguments as clearly and eloquently for a paper. Try to lose the debate
style and experiment with a more eloquent rhetorical approach. Debates
in the 1800s were not Lincoln-Douglass style; scholars were much more
subtle and elegant when speaking.
Laura Anderson:
"However, I don¿t think it¿s essential to speak strictly historically with someone like old W. J. B."
I think "with" should be "of" or "about".
------------
"Indeed,
as Bryan¿s adventures hardly seem historical anyway, it would seem cold
to confine him to purely historical interaction with the world."
You should drop "anyway".
----------
No
one seems that surprised to see Bryan there; probably he has pulled
bizarre extrahistorical materializations before and everyone has tired
of it.
You should not use "that" to denote a greater degree.
Instead, try "too" or "very" or another, more exciting word. Also, the
sentence after the semicolon could be "they had probably grown tired of
his bizarre, and unwelcome, extrahistorical materializations." This
revision keeps the two sentences arranged with parallel structure,
which is necessary when using a semicolon.
----------
I
think that you should continue with the argument in the last paragraph.
However, I think that you need to argue more than just a proof for
God's existence. Try discussing the benefits of a spiritual approach.
Why does it help us make sense of our lives? What about a spiritual
approach to nature is better?
Meagan Hughes:
Ahoy Meghan,
I
will make a few grammatical corrections to your paper, but first, I
would like to suggest a technique to make your writing stronger: try
cutting as many words as possible. You can accomplish this in two ways:
1) cut extra words out of sentences. For example:
"People
can not ignore theories that can be defended by science and fight
blindly for those that completely oppose the factual evidence presented
in favor of evolution for theories that are based on things that can
never be proven."
This sentence is wordy and confusing. You can
cut alot of words from this and still preserve its sense. Also, cutting
out the negation at the beginning avoids alot of confusion. Here is my
succinct suggestion:
People should defend scientifically defendable theories and oppose factually incomplete ones that can never be proven.
----------------
Another sentence that could use some paring, as well as some restructuring is:
"However,
we do know and can see great biological similarities that show that
animals on earth can adapt and strive for the perfect characteristics
to enable them to be successful in their environment."
Without losing any meaning, you get:
"However,
based on patterns of biological similarities, we know that animals on
earth can develop the perfect characteristics that enable them to
successfully inhabit their environment."
---------------
This next sentence provides a good example on how to cut out words:
"We do not know what initiated creation or whether or not a higher force participates in it today."
When
you use the word "whether", "or not" is implied. Therfore, you can
leave out those words, which often makes the sentence more clear,
especially if you have already used "or" as a conjunction. My
suggestion:
We do not know what initiated creation or whether a higher force participates in it today.
----------------
----------------
2)
Another way to make your writing more powerful and to-the-point is to
make sure that every sentence is 100% necessary for each paragraph. You
sometimes make your point in too many sentences, which causes you to
lose some of the efficacy of your argument. Try cutting a sentence out
of each paragraph. If you feel that you lose information this way, try
reincorporating the information into other sentences without increasing
the word count (from after you cut one sentence).
Hope this helps!
Brian
Eleanore Knox:
"I am concerned with communicating my findings not only with my fellow scientists, but with the American public."
should be: ..., but also with the American public.
--------
It
is imperative that science is not perceived as some incomprehensible
and abstract collection of theorems, but that it is accessible and
meaningful.
When you relate two clauses with a conjunction, they
should be parallel in structure. So, i think this sentence should be
rewritten like this:
It is imperative that science is not
perceived as some incomprehensible and abstract collection of theorems,
but as an accessible and meaningful compilation of empirical evidence.
-------
By the way, I really liked your first paragraph. Its so true!
------
In
fact, the question that I have been brought here tonight to discuss the
answer to is one of the most significant and profound questions that
effect both scientists and men and women of other persuasions.
You
should drop "the answer to". "effect" should be "effects" (because it
modifies "one"). "persuasions" should be something like "fields" since
"persuasions" usually implies a lifestyle rather than a profession.
Also, maybe a colon can go at the end of this to introduce the question.
-----------
And
I honestly am not completely sure. The notions that either theologians
or scientists can claim to completely comprehend the origin of life is
nonsensical.
I think these two sentences could be revised for better cohesiveness:
Quite
honestly, I am not completely sure what the answer to this question is.
Nonetheless, the claim that theologians or scientists can completely
comprehend the origin of life is nonsensical.
Nonetheless is a particularly awesome word because its like three words for the price of one.
-------
Those
who prefer to accept their religious dogmas blindly rather than
examining their faith and their world say, "it may be dangerous to
probe too deeply.
"examining" should be "examine" in order to be parallel in structure to "accept".
-----
I
think this paper strongly addresses the point you try to make. Perhaps
you can explain more deeply the presence of a spiritual world without a
God. What is the spiritual world? What does it mean? From where does it
originate? What are it's implications? How should we think about it?
These are some questions you MIGHT want to answer. But, its just a
suggestion.