Project 1A: My Suggestions to Others
Will McDonald
“We must create a recognizable continuum of architectural styles by fusing elements of all buildings on campus with completely new elements modern design.”
I think you’re missing an “of” before “modern design”--“We must create a recognizable continuum of architectural styles by fusing elements of all buildings on campus with completely new elements of modern design.”
I think it would be interesting if you expanded more on the idea of learning. How does a modern style promote learning? How would the modern Blanton better achieve its purpose than the building proposed in the master plan? I really liked it though--the writing flowed well!
Susan Shaffer
“An example of one such mistake is the tendency to trivialize the argument to a dispute over a literal versus figurative interpretation of ‘day’ in Genesis.”
Susan, why are you using “is”?!?! Just kidding. Anyway, you could reword it like this—“The tendency to trivialize the argument to a dispute over a literal versus figurative interpretation of ‘day’ in Genesis portrays this type of mistake.”
I think it would be interesting if you expand more on the implications of believing each theory or the implications of the debate. You start to touch on this at the end with the value of free speech/debate, but maybe expand on this a little more. Good job though--I really liked the detailed way you went through the debate!
Thomas Lopez
“Unfortunately the minds we are graced with are only two undergrads from the drama society.”
I think you need a comma after “unfortunately”—“Unfortunately, the minds with are graced with are only two undergrads from the drama society.”
I loved the ending—I think it's really interesting—maybe there’s some way you could expand on that.
Sharon Liao
“They try to argue that they are the ones with open minds while scientists are narrow-mindedly ignore other scientific studies.”
I think you meant for “ignore” to be “ignoring”—“They try to argue that they are the ones with open minds while scientists are narrow-mindedly ignoring other scientific studies.”
You did a really good job of explaining the differences between the two theories and the different arguments, but I think it would be good if you explained why it’s good to acknowledge that science and a spiritual approach are compatible.
Puja Parekh
“I carried out studies from 1854 to 1862 the various species of the genus Pitta and postulated that the ‘amount of diversity in the species of two adjacent islands is the measure of the time those islands have been separated’”.
I think you need something to explain what the studies were on. Also, I think the period should be inside the quotations—“I carried out students on the various species of the genus Pitta from 1854 to 1862 and postulated that the ‘amount of diversity in the species of two adjacent islands is the measure of the time those islands have been separated.’”
You did a really good job of explaining the similarities in structure between man and other creatures. I think you could have spent a little more time of the spiritual side of Wallace’s views.
Anush Emelianova
“First, a modern, abstract work by either Calder or Lewitt would be much more appropriate for the UT campus, given our favored architectural style.”
I think you should reword this sentence to make the architectural style applicable to the Blanton, not the UT campus as a whole. It seems the prominent architectural style for UT is Mediterranean with dots of modern. Also, in the next sentence you discuss the specific architecture of the Blanton. I would reword the sentence like this—“First, a modern, abstract work by either Calder or Lewitt would be much more appropriate for the Blanton, given our favored architectural style.”
I really liked the way you gave the viewer a progression of key words with each response. That trend seemed to dissolve after “environment”, so maybe expand on that.
Mita Lakhia
“As a early leader in the field of evolutionary theory, many greats have followed my initial findings.”
The “a” should be “an”—“As an early leader in the field of evolutionary theory, many greats have followed my initial findings.”
I really liked this part of your paper—“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.” I like the idea of progression, and I think it’s interesting to tie the decision made in the debate to the impact it will have on human progress.
Also, I really liked the example of the Oxford curriculum—it really clarified what you were talking about. Great job!
Laura Anderson
“No one seems that surprised to see Bryan there; probably he has pulled bizarre extrahistorical materializations before and everyone has tired of it.”
This sentence is missing something, probably a “because”. There are a lot of ways to rewrite it but here’s one—“No one seems surprised to see Bryan there. He has pulled bizarre extrahistorical materializations before, and everyone has tired of it.”
I really like the way you validate the Christian assumption by comparing it to other assumptions that are made—you could continue this trend throughout your paper by showing how even though intelligent design might commit one fault, another theory commits a similar fault. Then, end it by giving a/or several unique reasons why intelligent design should be affirmed.
Rachel Sibley
“When I was just a child a strange and mighty event graced my life.”
I think you need a comma—“When I was just a child, a strange and mighty event graced my life.”
I really liked it--I thought you did a good job of making her conversational and explaining her beliefs and interests. You could maybe expand on her childhood—when’d she develop this passion? Stuff like that could make her more personal. Great job!
Meagan Hughes
“I believe basically that animals have to ability to dispose of features that they do not use or need in order to survive, and likewise they can develop features that might enable them to better survive in an environment.”
I think you need to get rid of one of the “to be” verbs—“to ability” or “to dispose”—“I basically believe that animas have the ability to dispose of features that they do not use or need in order to survive, and likewise they can develop features that might enable them to better survive in an environment.”
I think you need to expand/support the idea that because the other theories have holes and can’t prove certain things, they’re invalid. In the readings from last week the flaws of each side are discussed. Maybe you should preempt some of the common objections to evolution. You say it has holes that will be filled in soon, but why won’t the other theories holes be filled in to? This is really far fetched, but in Angels and Demons, a scientist comes up with a way to recreate the Big Bang to prove that an outside force was at work in creation. Either side could potentially fill in holes soon.