Let see how good your English skill are
Do the one you know, you may also take a guess on the one you don't know.
|
|
Some of the terminology here is not anything like what I was taught in school.
1. This seems like an ambiguous question to me. I would guess "Sentence fluency"
2. I would guess "Organization"
3. I would guess "Mechanics"
4. I woul guess "Diction"
5. I am confident it is "Thesis"
6. This question doesn't make sense to me. I would guess "Conclusion"
7. I would guess "Clear word choice" - when you're evaluating the organization, the word choice is a separate matter.
8. I would guess "Life as a coal miner in West Virginia"
9. I hope to god this one is obvious to everyone. Even so, my teachers didn't like us using "I" or "we" or "me", etc. in our essays.
10. I would guess "Lead-in"
11. I hope to god this one is obvious to everyone, despite the typos.
12. This is weird like #6 - I don't think the use of the word "identifies" is correct. I would guess "Introduction"
13. I am confident it is "Background information"
14. This is like #7 - I would guess "No unnecessary details"
15. I would guess "Body"
16. I would guess "Lead-in"
17. Uh, duh? One of these things is not like the others; one of these things is just not the same. "Topic sentence"
18. IIRC, "Tone"
19. I would guess "Lead-in"
20. I would guess "Conclusion"
21. I would guess "There is no 21st question"
1. This seems like an ambiguous question to me. I would guess "Sentence fluency"
2. I would guess "Organization"
3. I would guess "Mechanics"
4. I woul guess "Diction"
5. I am confident it is "Thesis"
6. This question doesn't make sense to me. I would guess "Conclusion"
7. I would guess "Clear word choice" - when you're evaluating the organization, the word choice is a separate matter.
8. I would guess "Life as a coal miner in West Virginia"
9. I hope to god this one is obvious to everyone. Even so, my teachers didn't like us using "I" or "we" or "me", etc. in our essays.
10. I would guess "Lead-in"
11. I hope to god this one is obvious to everyone, despite the typos.
12. This is weird like #6 - I don't think the use of the word "identifies" is correct. I would guess "Introduction"
13. I am confident it is "Background information"
14. This is like #7 - I would guess "No unnecessary details"
15. I would guess "Body"
16. I would guess "Lead-in"
17. Uh, duh? One of these things is not like the others; one of these things is just not the same. "Topic sentence"
18. IIRC, "Tone"
19. I would guess "Lead-in"
20. I would guess "Conclusion"
21. I would guess "There is no 21st question"
Last edited on
1. Content. You don't write papers to show fluency. The purpose is to deliver an idea.
4. Also content. Ideas are content.
6. Introduction. While the conclusion may/should reiterate the thesis, it is identified (or introduced) in the first paragraph.
9. None are very good, but C is the best. (and props for good humor.)
10. You don't put any supporting evidence in the Introduction.
12. "Identifies" is correct.
(15. Poorly-worded question: a five paragraph essay's body is composed of three paragraphs.)
16. The topic sentence is what a paragraph is about. The lead-in may also be a topic sentence, but it need not be.
18. Alas, "manner of expression" is diction. Tone is the feeling associated with the expression.
21. Absolutely correct.
4. Also content. Ideas are content.
6. Introduction. While the conclusion may/should reiterate the thesis, it is identified (or introduced) in the first paragraph.
9. None are very good, but C is the best. (and props for good humor.)
10. You don't put any supporting evidence in the Introduction.
12. "Identifies" is correct.
(15. Poorly-worded question: a five paragraph essay's body is composed of three paragraphs.)
16. The topic sentence is what a paragraph is about. The lead-in may also be a topic sentence, but it need not be.
18. Alas, "manner of expression" is diction. Tone is the feeling associated with the expression.
21. Absolutely correct.
| Duoas wrote: |
|---|
| 9. None are very good, but C is the best. (and props for good humor.) |
1) B
2) A
3)B
4)B
7)A ///depends on what the writer's mind want I suppose :)
8)C
9)C or D?
10)C
11)C
12)C
13)D
14)C ///same as 7 :)
17)D
18)D
20)B
Just what I think they are. :))
2) A
3)B
4)B
7)A ///depends on what the writer's mind want I suppose :)
8)C
9)C or D?
10)C
11)C
12)C
13)D
14)C ///same as 7 :)
17)D
18)D
20)B
Just what I think they are. :))
"D" is also the one NoobLess's teacher will want to see, but it's wrong.
First off, the question was... hmm, I just reread the question; I guess it's fair to say that only teachers will be reading it in school context, and if any students do it will be under the direction of a teacher, so "D" actually is the right answer.
But it's still wrong. No one wants to read anything titled that way. (Not even teachers.)
"The authors I researched..."
Inappropriate detail; it is a required premise that the writer did research, etc; specificity on the student's research when both the subject and the remainder of the sentence are singly lacking any; pedantic.
"...offer convincing evidence..."
Misplaced action, again placing emphasis in the wrong place: on the authors the author researched; rendering it boring; mis-ordered: we're already at specifically non-specific "convincing evidence" before the topic is mentioned. More on this in a second.
"...that this topic..."
again, we bother to explicitly mention the topic, but in the least informative way possible; besides, shouldn't this be the subject of the sentence?
"...deserves further research and funding."
Another predicate - this could have been two sentences; begs the question: aren't your sources researching and funding it? Of what use are your sources then?
We find that the main idea is confused with multiple subjunctive or ancillary ideas, rendering it nearly as vague as the references in the text itself. Whenever you can see one or more simpler ideas bundled together, it is best to separate them out and express them as clearly as possible.
Standard grading rubrics will mark down for mentioning yourself and for not using as specific wording as possible.
It would seem the main idea being expressed is that more time and money needs to be thrown at something. So why not just say that?
That the evidence is convincing is nice, but the paper should convince me anyway; saying it is then nothing more than a teaser, and should not be the independent thought in the statement.
The humor in statement "C" is the way non-specifics are employed to grab attention (something "D" fails to do), and anticipates the forthcoming (as in, in the next sentence) details.
"A couple of people think something small needs a lot more time and money.
"These people are Carl Sagan and Dan Rather, and they're thinking about deep sea microbes, of all things. August as they are, we might be inclined to put this particular adventure off for a while and focus on stuff closer at hand. But they have some pretty convincing arguments for spending resources on them right now."
Sorry it takes do long to post on a handheld. (Which always seems to want to write something other than what I typed.)
First off, the question was... hmm, I just reread the question; I guess it's fair to say that only teachers will be reading it in school context, and if any students do it will be under the direction of a teacher, so "D" actually is the right answer.
But it's still wrong. No one wants to read anything titled that way. (Not even teachers.)
"The authors I researched..."
Inappropriate detail; it is a required premise that the writer did research, etc; specificity on the student's research when both the subject and the remainder of the sentence are singly lacking any; pedantic.
"...offer convincing evidence..."
Misplaced action, again placing emphasis in the wrong place: on the authors the author researched; rendering it boring; mis-ordered: we're already at specifically non-specific "convincing evidence" before the topic is mentioned. More on this in a second.
"...that this topic..."
again, we bother to explicitly mention the topic, but in the least informative way possible; besides, shouldn't this be the subject of the sentence?
"...deserves further research and funding."
Another predicate - this could have been two sentences; begs the question: aren't your sources researching and funding it? Of what use are your sources then?
We find that the main idea is confused with multiple subjunctive or ancillary ideas, rendering it nearly as vague as the references in the text itself. Whenever you can see one or more simpler ideas bundled together, it is best to separate them out and express them as clearly as possible.
Standard grading rubrics will mark down for mentioning yourself and for not using as specific wording as possible.
It would seem the main idea being expressed is that more time and money needs to be thrown at something. So why not just say that?
That the evidence is convincing is nice, but the paper should convince me anyway; saying it is then nothing more than a teaser, and should not be the independent thought in the statement.
The humor in statement "C" is the way non-specifics are employed to grab attention (something "D" fails to do), and anticipates the forthcoming (as in, in the next sentence) details.
"A couple of people think something small needs a lot more time and money.
"These people are Carl Sagan and Dan Rather, and they're thinking about deep sea microbes, of all things. August as they are, we might be inclined to put this particular adventure off for a while and focus on stuff closer at hand. But they have some pretty convincing arguments for spending resources on them right now."
Sorry it takes do long to post on a handheld. (Which always seems to want to write something other than what I typed.)
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Start with the title of the thread:
Let see how good your English skill are
Let see how good your English skill are
| But it's still wrong. No one wants to read anything titled that way. (Not even teachers.) |
You made 2 mistakes in your analysis. 1) The sentence is not the title. 2) It's the tone, not the content of the sentence that you are being questioned about.
Last edited on
| You made 2 mistakes in your analysis. |
You made three mistakes in your analysis of my analysis.
1) It's a topic lead-in. Another word for that kind of thing is title, as it title sentence -- which may actually be more than one sentence.
3) You missed the entire road trip to notice that one little bump.
2) My entire critique is about tone.
Stay away from me.
| There is a nonzero chance that you just did someone's homework. |
I think the chance is pretty close to one. :O)
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.