Puja Parekh
February 16, 2006
My responses to other P1 projects
Cheryl:
By achieving a true relation witht he character
in their writing, the student attributes more believable characteristics
and actions to the character, producing higher quality literature.
This sentence should read:
By achieving a true relation with the character
in their writing, the student attributes more believable characteristics
and actions to the character, producing higher quality literature.
As to improving the paper, I would suggest rewriting
some of the paragraphs as several adjacent sentences seem to
repeat the same terms (for example: “by recognizing the
whole”). I think all you need to do to is read this paper
out loud, since it is a speech, and fix any kinks that are audible.
Besides this, I think the paper is really thorough. Good job!
Laura:
"Indeed, you are at the brink of weakening
greatly the faith of generations, and this is why I have come."
I think you should rewrite this sentence because
greatly has positive connotations and weakening does not. Also,
I think it should be "on the brink", not "at
the brink":
"Indeed, you are on the brink of significantly
weakening the faith of generations, and this is why I have come."
I really like the approach you took in your paper.
The only distraction I found while reading the paper was the
repeated use of the word "historically". Address that,
and I think you¿re golden. You're going in a great direction,
and I love that you've been able to make a scientific paper
fun to read. I think one way to increase the length of the paper
would be to point out some facts supporting intelligent design
(this is in answer to the evolutionists saying that ID-ers only
find loopholes in evolution and no facts supporting their own
theory). Good Luck!
Meagan:
This world has continued evolving for millions
of years and will continue to evolve for many more.
I think the “has continued evolving”
should be replaced with “has been evolving”.
This world has been evolving for millions of years
and will continue to evolve for many more.
Who is the speaker in the paper? I never really
caught a name. Is it Lamarck? Are Mita and you both writing
on the same person? I’m really confused. To increase the
length of the paper, I suggest explaining the speaker’s
two theories a bit more. The quotes are really technical, and
it’d be really helpful if the speaker simplified them
right after in the layman’s terms.
Mita:
I would now like to offer the following the following three
arguments to support my position:
The repetition is a really simply error to fix:
I would now like to offer the following three
arguments to support my position:
Isn’t the debate supposed to take place
in the 1800s? You mention 2006, so I was a little confused.
To increase the length of the paper, I suggest addressing the
specific ID issue of missing links and their belief that some
“intelligent designer” is the cause of them. I really
enjoyed your paper otherwise. It’s obvious that you know
what you’re doing when it comes to debates.
Noel:
She flips lazily through the newest addition of
Cosmo Magazine.
I’m pretty sure you mean edition =)
She flips lazily through the newest edition of
Cosmo Magazine.
Your paper is REALLY thorough. The only suggestions
that come to mind to increase length is that perhaps the ID
scientist can mention the 3 “unexplained” occurrences
that Wallace (my guy) talked about. I’d be really interested
in seeing what the evolutionary biologist responded with.
Will:
My fellow regents, we are gathered here to make
another step towards selecting an architect to design a new
Blanton Museum of Art.
Even though this statement is grammatically correct
(to my knowledge atleast), I think that a speaker would be more
inclined to say "take another step" instead of "make
another step". You could also consider substituting "the"
for "a", to see if it fits better.
My fellow regents, we are gathered here to take
another step towards selecting an architect to design the new
Blanton Museum of Art.
I really liked the format of your project. I did
feel a little cheated at the end, as no compromise or indications
of one were given. I think to you could give an inkling as to
the decision of the board to increase the length of you paper.
Great Job on the paper though.
Susan:
By accepting deism (the belief that God created
and then let Nature work its course) is answering no to the
question of "whether God cares about us, and whether we
need to care about God's purposes".
I think this sentence needs to be reworded for
clarity, and the period needs to be outside the quotations:
Accepting deism (the belief that God created the
world and then let Nature work its course) is answering no to
the question of "whether God cares about us, and whether
we need to care about God's purposes".
I really like the way you left it open for debate
at the end. The only thing is that the debate has a very official
feeling to it, like an article, instead of a speech. You can
expand the paper by having the speaker bring in a personal anecdote
or explaining what his own beliefs are and what led him there.
Great Job!
Thomas:
I would never know. There was no way to know.
Upon realizing this I couldn¿t help but let out a laugh
and shake my head. "No way to really know," I murmured
to myself.
Reading this segment together, I felt that you
had too many consecutive knows. Maybe you could reword it to
eliminate it a little?
There was no way for me to know. Upon realizing
this I couldn¿t help let out a laugh and shake my head.
"No way to really know," I murmured to myself.
I felt that the paper had no winding-down. I think
to increase the length of the paper, you could have some closure
to the conversation, with the narrator walking away and giving
some of his own thoughts on what Barfield said.
Sharon:
In short, they see evolution as something that
destroys their idea of God.
What I noticed was that you didn't state who the
"they" were in this paragraph.
In short, the creationists see evolution as something
that destroys their idea of God.
I think you wrote a great paper. It shows both
of the views spectacularly. If you want to lengthen the paper,
I think you can talk a little about why you chose creationism
to focus on, especially when there are so many different definitions
of spiritualism.
Eleanore:
The same applies to theories of science; a hypothesis
cannot be accepted as a law simply because there are a fervent
body of people who believe it to be true.
This should read:
The same applies to theories of science; a hypothesis
cannot be accepted as a law simply because there is a fervent
body of people who believe it to be true.
I REALLY liked the way your speaker describes
the accidents that brought humans here as miraculous. I felt
that your paper was really thorough. The only way I can think
of for you to expand it is maybe by citing some scientific evidence
for evolution. Good Job Eleanore!
