Assignment: Respond to at least half the class. You must quote a whole sentence of the student's essay that has not been quoted by a previous respondent and specify where the sentence needs improvement and then rewrite the sentence to improve it. For the subject line of your reply, paste in the sentence you are going to rewrite so that it will be easier for others to see what sentences are left for revision. My Responses to Others'
Projects 1. Hey Eleanore, I just wanted to point out
that you made a few punctuation errors, and I was noticing that there were
similar mistakes. First off, "It is not to say that religion does not have value
within our society, it can, "provide a solace and support, a bulwark in
time of emotional need, and can serve extremely useful social roles."" Basically, you have two
separate sentences connected with ONLY a comma.
You should either put a semicolon or a "–" to offer this addition to the
first sentence. I would rewrite it: It is not to say that religion does not have value
within our society—it can, "provide a solace and support, a bulwark in time of
emotional need, and can serve extremely useful social roles." Also, just to let you know,
you don't need a comma before this quote:
"I do not believe in God in the sense of, "an
outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne
somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow." So instead it should just
read, I do not believe in God in the sense of "an outsized,
light-skinned male…. I noticed that you made a
similar mistake one or two other times. I
actually really am glad you chose this scientist because I never knew who he
was. I would love to hear some of his
astronomical data that he has collected, and perhaps some of this evidence that
he has collected could be included in a revision. 2. Hello Meagan, "Today
with advancements in genetics, scientists are able to compare different genetic
characteristics of similar species." I don't know if this sentence actually incorrect,
but I can see that it can be made better by possibly changing it like this: With
today's advancement in genetics, scientists are able to compare different
genetic characteristics of similar species. To improve your paper, I noticed that you used
"thus" a few times, and though I think it would fit your character, sometimes
they seemed out of place. Also, in places that you used "can not," I think it
would be better to use the more acceptable usage of "cannot." It's not technically wrong, but it's more
often written the other way. Can not is
broken up for particular sentences and I didn't think that these were the ones
for them. 3. Hi Rachel, I just wanted to bring to your attention that the
link for the MOO is misspelled, but that is no big deal for me since I know the
website. I know that the dashes can be rather
effective—especially when you're trying to have your character read like a
person speaks. However, I thought this
line in her conversation got really muddled. "Yes, I know a little bit - and more than most
in my time - about them." I think that it would be more effective with
parentheses (if you can use them in the MOO that is… I don't remember). If you can't use parantheses, I think it
would read equally as well like this: Yes,
I know a little bit them—and more than most in my time! Also, I couldn't find any keywords? Did I just miss them? I had to look at the whole list of her
keyword responses to talk to her. Good
job making her have a particular personality! 4. Hey Laura, "Indeed,
as Bryan's adventures hardly seem historical anyway, it would seem cold to
confine him to purely historical interaction with the world." Like was suggested before, I believe that the
"anyway" can be dropped, In ADDITION, I
think the use of the word "seem" twice in the sentence takes away from the flow
and makes it clumsy. I would be up for a
total rewrite—something like this: "Since Bryan's adventures are hardly historical, it
would be cold to confine him to a purely historical interaction with the
world." The ending is abrupt. You gave him an entrance to the meeting, he
should have an exit as well as some sort of audience feedback. 5. Hello
Mita, "The
reason for this burst of idealism and a pseudo turn toward science is not due
to the sudden mixture of religion and knowledge, but rather because of
"Creationism 2.0,"" I have a feeling that you use "a pseudo turn
toward" science to imply that it isn't a real turn towards science, just a
rewording of creationism. I had to read
that sentence several times, and though I don't know if my suggestion is any
better, it would make more sense to me if it was written something like this: " The reason for this burst of idealism and the
development of a new so-called scientific explanation is not due to a sudden
mixture of religion and knowledge, but rather the upgrade to "Creationism 2.0." The debate formatting is a really great way to
approach it. I didn't feel that your
contention one however was made as a specific point to support your stand on
the revolution. It was an attack on
intelligent design, and didn't explain how this point would make science and a
spiritual approach incompatible. Perhaps
just make a stronger connection that there is no way for one religion to be
RIGHT, and therefore a wide-scale compatibility is impossible. 6. Hi Anush I like the flow of the keywords—the bracketing is
very helpful and required some extra forethought. Under the keywords "representational," I found a
simple way to improve on this: "However,
the [University] of Texas has traditionally more representational works,
particularly those with classical themes." Perhaps you can just rework it slightly to read
this: However, the University of Texas, traditionally,
has more representational works, particularly those with classical themes. Or even Traditionally, however, the University of Texas has
more representational works, particularly those with classical themes. I think that you may want to add more keywords, but
I'm not sure what the requirements are for the MOO this time around. I know there is just the word limit, but in
the past he had wanted at least 20 keywords.
Also, it would be really cool if you could make your bot more
conversational. I would love to be able
to ask her questions and she responds. 7. Hey Brian Sorry to hear about your MOO troubles. Sometimes the MOO can be a heifer. Anyways. I
think it would be helpful if you had explicit instructions on how to get to St.
Thomas. Also, if you offered the
keywords on the page you actually talk to him, it would be way easier to
handle. Now for the sentence: "This
would mean that a few simple laws, caused the prime matter and energy to follow
an inevitable path of generation, leading to, among other things, the existence
of intelligent life." Just simply delete the comma and you have… This would mean that a few simple laws caused the
prime matter and energy to follow an inevitable path of generation…. I was tickled by the phrase "uncaused cause." 8. Hello Ben
G. First off, move Solomon now before he is officially
damned to hell. I couldn't really talk
with him, so I have no suggestions conversationally. I had to view your keywords… "These
elements perform no function other than depleting energy, and are therefore
could only be examples of unintelligent design!" Is that 'could' extraneous? If so, take it out. If not, take out "are therefore" for obvious
reasons. Also, when I'm reading fast
it's hard for me to make the distinction between intelligent and unintelligent
design. It's rather silly, but maybe if
you feel like it, you could emphasize the UN part. I would suggest: These elements perform no function other than
depleting energy and could only be examples of UNintelligent design! Though some of your keywords offer fairly lengthy
explanations, it gets frustrating when the MOO scrolls so far upwards because
it can't fit the response on the screen.
Maybe try breaking up some of these into smaller chunks? 9. Hello Vanessa, "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."" Right
now I feel like "outside the sky" is reading as if we are looking outside of
the realm of the sky. A simple comma
should fix it right up: 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." I
think in order to make this paper more precise in what it is trying to say, the
challenges against Darwin's theory need to be enumerated and expanded on,
especially the embryological findings and his anthological ideals, especially
since these are used to support evolution as it stand without intelligent
design being taken into consideration. 10. Hey Puja, "The
destruction of life on earth through the expansion of the sun that scientists
warn us of can by no means be the end of the mind and intellect, which have yet
to reach their pinnacle" I
thought this sentence was a bit jumbled.
I would suggest revising it in a way that all of its distinct parts are
more clearly stated: Scientists
warn us that the expansion of the sun will be the destruction of all life, but
by no means will this be the end of the mind and intellect which have yet to
reach their pinnacle. One
thing you should do to your paper to make it more concise is to mention that
embryology isn't as suggestive and originally thought. Though some embryos do like similar at
certain stages, they are much more varied that one was first purposed. Since you're presenting a case where
evolution can be compatible, then it would only be fair to share both sides. 11. Hello Thomas, "Two
minds, set apart by ideology, battled for more than life – reputation – in this
room." I
think that bisecting "more than life" and "in this room" with "reputation is
confusing. The link with reputation
isn't established clearly. Perhaps you
could reword it like this: "Two
minds, set apart by ideology, battled in this room for more than life—but for
reputation. As
for additions or subtractions: I just
think that you may want to add some sort of conclusive ending to make it
parallel to the narrative's beginning. 12. Hey Susan, I
think your paper is very well written.
As a suggestion to go with that theme: "Is
this compromise really more satisfying though?" I
think by taking out the "though," it would make this rhetorical statement more
concise and to the point. Though just
detracts from the overall flow. I'd
like to comment on the reference to "hard evidence" that supports intelligent
design. Although it is perfectly fair to
offer a critique of evolution, you bring this point up. "A museum exhibit in
San Francisco went so far as to create a "Hard Facts Wall" which shows the
common ancestors for species without informing the visitor that these
"ancestors" are just predictions and not actual discoveries.[19]" If evolution amounts to speculation and
predictions, then the analogies and references used to question evolution
cannot be considered factual either.
Just because scientists cannot explain the group habits of ants or give
a step by step account of the complexity of cells, doesn't mean that these
incidences are "hard evidence" for intelligent design. Since we're trying to reconcile the two, it
would only be fair to analyze the debate by the same terms. Responses
To My Project:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||