Writing Feedback / Australian Gold Rush: Introduction writing [16]

I agree with Simone -- this is a very promising start. I'd alter this, though:

"All this made Australia the country we know today."

This avoids the immediate repetition of the word "Australia," which seems unnecessary.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

Good, definitely. I enjoy these sorts of debates, though this one was getting a tad frustrating. Why don't you write up an essay defending your point of view? Then, you could post it in its own thread, and I could point out all of the flaws in your arguments without disturbing Mustafa. :-)

Book Reports / King Lear naivety and inability to control his emotions (ENG4U class) [17]

Yeah, if you are going with "unwilling" rather than "unable," you can unite a lot of the points under the heading of hubris. So, if he willfully ignore his daughters' advice, then that can be cast as hubris. If he willfully chooses to engage in expressions of rage rather than in reasoned discourse, believing that he should be obeyed without question, then that too can be classified as a type of hubris. And pride, of course, is a close synonym to begin with. Hmmmm . . . three points that can all be tied back to the same overarching statement, almost like it were a defensible thesis . . .

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]

There is nothing erroneous or self-contradicting in any of my posts, though your labeling of them as such reveals your true motivation for your complaint. As for it being extraneous, as I recall, the debate had been entirely about the topic of your essay, until you bought up evolution in one of your posts. As I recall, you compared believing in evolution to believing in pink unicorns. You must have expected that to provoke some sort of response, though Nicholas's appearance on the thread drew the digression out much longer than anyone could have foreseen.

But if you want to bring the discussion back to your essay, that's perfectly understandable. Why don't you post a revised version of your essay, based on the feedback we gave you before this digression occurred then? That way, we'll have something new to comment on.

Letters / Job Portfolio: What do I include? [7]

Eric already mentioned this, but it bears repeating: a sample article tailored to the place you are applying would really strengthen your portfolio. After all, if you can prove that you can write what the company needs you to write in your portfolio, then that gives the company a great reason to hire you.

Essays / Essay on Early Years Social Policy [4]

Since you have already researched the two acts, why not write up a list of differences between them, and identify the reasons behind each one? I'm guessing that a clear pattern will emerge, in which you can see how the changes in policy reflect changes in a particular philosophical outlook on what responsibilities the government has to protect and care for children (and what the government should not do, I imagine). Then, you can either start crafting an essay on the acts, or you can look for other legislation that demonstrates the trends you have discovered, and write about either those trends in general or the legislation you have found in specific.

Scholarship / Personal Essay - Something I've learned through a personal experience [6]

Great essay. I love the way you cross-cut your experience learning the bass guitar with your volunteer experience. The final anecdote seems a bit off -- it seems a bit too convenient that Joe says exactly what you want to hear. It would have been better if you had have him say something that expressed gratitude in a away that allowed you to come to the conclusion that he currently states for you. Still, excellent job given your time constraints.

Writing Feedback / Machine Learning versus Learning by Humans [51]

I find many of your posts a bit obscure, actually. The past couple have been okay, but a lot of the original material deals with very abstract ideas. Usually,you should ground this sort of writing in concrete examples. So, when you talk about learning, instead of just going on about learning a subject and integrating ideas, you might give some concrete examples involving a particular subject (say, physics) and a particular concept (say, acceleration), and then talk about how one might pick up that concept by studying, say, videos of cars in motion.

Also, much of what you are writing edges into mysticism of some form or another, as when you write this: "So in this bed of conscience, characteristics come afloat on losing the physical coherence of a body, existing as a potential or many potentials, and no single identity." I don't know if this sentence actually says anything meaningful, but my suspicion is that it probably does not. Part of this may reflect your own issues with English (I'm almost certain you mean "consciousness" rather than "conscience," for example), but even allowing for those sort of errors, I am not certain what characteristics of consciousness you believe could exist without the physical coherence of a body, or what it is you think they have potential to do.

That said, many of your metaphors are quite well-written. I especially like the one with the marbles, and even the one before that, with the forest, was passable, although a tad less clear (what exactly is the goal of the person in the forest? To live in it? To escape it?) In any event, you should certainly keep on writing up your ideas down, as most of your writing shows a lot of promise.

Writing Feedback / If you could invent something new, what product would you develop? (TOEFL essay) [10]

There are a few pieces of advice I would give you for your current situation.

1. Don't worry about speed at first. Just work on getting your ideas down in an organized, coherent fashion, with grammar good enough that your meaning remains clear.

2. Start studying various topics in American and world history that you can draw on for examples. Wars make for good reading in this respect -- the Cold War, the Vietnam War, WWI, WWII, etc. Beyond that, it helps to be familiar with one or two threads of ancient philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), incidents and figures from the history of science, (Gallileo, Darwin, Newton, Einstein) and general historical events, such as the Great Depression. This will give you a repertoire of examples you can use to make strong points in favor of any position on just about any issue.

3. Begin to notice how formulaic TOEFL essays are, and to learn what that formula is. This will greatly help with the speed issue.

Book Reports / King Lear naivety and inability to control his emotions (ENG4U class) [17]

In keeping with Simone's excellent advice, you might also want to address Lear's initial decision to give his kingdom away to his daughters, and how that shows his great hubris. It isn't just that he wants to have all the benefits of being king while giving up the responsibilities, though that is part of it, too. Nor is it that he gives away land based on his daughters' ability to flatter rather than based upon his own understanding of their characters, though again, that's also part of it. Most importantly, though, it is that, under Shakespeare's worldview, kings are divinely appointed, chosen by God. That makes kingship a charge that Lear does not have the right to lay down. To believe that he can divest himself of what he was divinely invested with is arrogance that involves placing himself above God, which is sort of the very definition of hubris.

Undergraduate / Personal Essay/Personal Statement, "connection between me and science" [10]

Also, many university applications have an "extra" essay, one that is optional, in which you can talk about anything you feel needs explaining. If this is true in this case, you might want to dedicate that essay to explaining your apparently poor academic performance in past years, and focus wholly on your positive aspects in this essay.

Undergraduate / "To Understand and Be Understood" - Why do you want to pursue a career in the medical field? [14]

""Room 116: Elenear Brightfield and Gloria Lin." A star is placed beside their names to indicate their affliction with Alzheimer's and to remind employees to remain alert to their possibly wandering from the center's grounds. I peer into the room for a few brief seconds only to observe two unfamiliar faces in their beds. I walk back outside."

"I sit myself down in a white wooden rocking chair found on the front porch. The light from the setting sun scatters on the patio's bricks. A short, fragile, ghostly-looking ladyironically (word?) begins to sing one of my grandmother's favorite songs: "Blue Skies" by Frank Sinatra. I want to believe that my grandmother is singing to me through this woman's voice. As I sit in the over-sized rocking chair, listening appreciatively to the melody of the lady , I begin to reminisce..."

You're writing is already pretty good. You have few enough errors that you can probably finish revising the essay on your own. Good luck.

Writing Feedback / If you could invent something new, what product would you develop? (TOEFL essay) [10]

Maybe "So anyThis equipment which can tellwould warn u s beforehand that certain eventsand practicescan be dangerous formay harm our environment, hence allowing us to change our behavior and toand by that we can stop it and prevent further damage to the atmosphere."

That might work, I think.

Essays / Perseverance essay in relation to ice hokey [7]

You mention that Orr lived at a time of war, and that this complicated his life. You might want to elaborate on that earlier in the essay. Also, you don't really talk much about what he did that showed perseverance, apart from training hard, which is presumably true of all professional athletes. Maybe you could talk about his training schedule, injuries he had to recover from, other setbacks he faced, etc. In other words, show his perseverance, rather than just telling about it.

And remember, if at first you don't succeed, don't take up skydiving.

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]


No, the first article on the other website I linked to.


There has been all sorts of proof -- that's why all serious biologists accept the theory, why, in fact, acceptance of the theory is pretty much a necessary part of what it means to be a serious biologist.


Again, you are making false statements. Evolution doesn't violate the law of biogenesis. It is not a theory that deals with the origins of the first single-celled organisms, but a theory that deals with how complex multicellular species come about after that, and so doesn't even deal with the same questions. Besides, biogenesis states only that modern organisms don't spontaneously arise from non-life. So, no flies appearing by magic on rotten meat. Biogenesis remains silent on the question of how life started in the first place. So, I guess we can add biogenesis to the long list of scientific theories you don't understand.


This is what I mean about creationism relying on dishonesty and lies. This simply isn't the case. The very first article on the list explained how, in a lab, anyone could perform an experiment that would show mutation adding information in bacteria. Another one listed various mechanisms that permit the addition of information, including duplication and polyploidy. You deliberately chose to ignore this in order to fasten on some other, irrelevant piece of information you could use a straw man.


That would be a question for a different field of science.


No, you misunderstand, yet again. I was saying that you clearly couldn't prove something that is false. Not something that "I believe" to be false, but something that actually is demonstrably false. Again, the thing you are arguing is impossible is something that anyone who cares to go into a university lab can see for themselves. No amount of dissembling is going to help you in such a case.


Again, this is a "problem" with evolution according to creationists, because they persist in deliberately misunderstanding the theory, which doesn't posit the existence of a "missing link" in the first place. It predicts what in fact we see in the fossil record -- gradual changes between species over time, with no clear line demarcating them. The "missing link" argument only works if you believe evolution predicts the discovery of clearly delineated intermediate species, which it doesn't.

Writing Feedback / Persuasive essay (Lithium based batteries>Nickel based batteries) [33]

Hey, 86% is a pretty good grade, and you were in shouting distance of breaking 90, which you probably would have done if your teacher hadn't thought you'd plagiarized to begin with. Good job all around, I'd say.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]


I read somewhere that people generally tend to want to believe in an afterlife because they can't imagine not existing anymore. So, when they think of death as not leading to an afterlife, they imagine themselves sliding, not into oblivion, but into a state where they continue to exist as floating disembodied in darkness forever. If that were what death as oblivion really meant, then any conception of a different afterlife would be better than that. But that isn't what oblivion means. Oblivion means complete cessation of consciousness, of all pain, sadness, anxiety, etc. It's not really something to be afraid of. In fact, I think most people fear the pain of dying, rather than death itself. So, I suppose, I have no psychological investment in the idea of an afterlife, and it is a difficult concept to believe in without that.


But, consciousness could not have existed to dream up a world of matter unless matter already existed, if in fact it is true that there can be no consciousness without matter.

Poetry / William Blake Poetry Paper [23]

Sounds pretty good. You seem to have found some research on Blake you can draw on, which is always helpful.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]


But the very phrase creative beings implies that they are made of matter. That is, "being" implies a physical existence. Reality might be a matrix-like illusion, but the illusion must ultimately run on some physical reality that isn't.


But how do expect to use words to do that if you do not first establish what the words mean?


Lol! Excellent!


Oh, no. If it had been me, I would have said, "I refute it thus," then knocked Berkley over the head with the stone. Since the stone, and his head, are both merely illusions, he would have had no reason to protest.

Writing Feedback / War -- victor or no victor? [45]


Um, wow! That's the first time anyone has ever accused me of being a subjectivist. I don't know whether to be mortified or amused. I'll go with the latter, I guess. But, no, my view is absolutely not that there is no such thing as truth. Or, to get rid of all of those pesky negatives, I believe that there is such a thing as truth. Or, to refine it to be somewhat more accurate, I believe that there are truths and that reality is objective.

"Burning is a process of oxidization" I believe to be a true statement.
"The Earth revolves around the sun" I believe to be another, and so on.

That said, I fully realize that many of our perceptions and desires are subjective. I also tend to believe that a lot of our political and philosophical beliefs are ultimately subjective, a matter of personal preference rather than of objective principle. To give a very brief, and admittedly oversimplified example, communists are people who would prefer to live in a society where everyone was equal, even if that has to mean equality at the lowest level. Capitalists are people who prefer to live in a society where people can achieve whatever they can, even if it means others end up with nothing. That's why the two sides never agree. They don't really disagree on the facts. Oh, they pretend to -- capitalists will argue that capitalism will result in benefits even for the poor (and in some ways they're right) but deep down they know that the very poorest of the poor will be worse off. And the communists like to pretend that some ideal form of communism could be idyllic and free from the dire poverty that characterizes most truly communist states, but deep down, they know that the system they embrace will lead to equality at the lowest possible level. The facts aren't in doubt, not really. Its just that some people prefer the idea of one system and other people prefer the idea of the other. However -- and this is important -- the range of subjective beliefs we can hold is limited by our understanding of objective truths. That is, we can profess belief in magic, but never really believe in it enough to jump off of tall buildings to test it, because then the belief dies with us.

I further believe that any set of beliefs embraced by a large number of people for a long time contains some truth -- otherwise, it wouldn't accord with our experiences, and no one would believe it. Therefore, it is generally best to meet on middle ground.

The reason I get so . . . concerned when defending evolution is that I see it as falling into the camp of objective, scientific facts, truths, if you will, rather than into the camp of subjective political beliefs. Now, the two are not wholly unrelated, and I understand that it may be impossible to admit the truth of evolution and still hold certain subjective beliefs that are dear to ones' heart. That just doesn't strike me as having any bearing on the truth of the theory.

Writing Feedback / Essay on the legal drinking age [6]

Your revised version is better. You could try this: "Through the interviews, I have come to believe that more and more people are becoming convinced that drinking alcohol should be a matter for teenagers and their parents to handle, rather than the law." That, I think, would at least fit in with what you have written in the body of the essay.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]

To be fair, the site's purpose would seem to be self-evident, so much so that, in the very first FAQ section of the site (which isn't that hard to find, btw) one of the students posted the following "The purpose of this site lies in its own name: essayforum. If you have an essay, you should post it here in order to receive comments." Moreover, this category is called "Essay Writing Feedback," which likewise suggests that one should post an essay here, in hopes of getting feedback on it.

Besides, we don't spurn people who post "lazy" threads -- we just tell them to research their topic, take their best shot at a draft, and post it here, which is advice I stand by. Many of them do this, and find the site quite useful. Some don't, for whatever reason.

I would also venture to say that students who just post the instructions without even asking a question, or who just want someone to give them "ideas" or "arguments" are in fact being lazy. After all, if they know enough to track down this site using Google, then they know enough to be able to track down at least some ideas and arguments on their own. They may not realize they are being lazy, and there may be other factors involved, such as shyness, or fear of not expressing themselves well in a second language, but they have still got to make an effort to come up with something on their own if they want meaningful feedback. I don't doubt that this is tougher for some than for others, but that doesn't alter what is required one whit.

Writing Feedback / Essay on the legal drinking age [6]

Your conclusion definitely needs a bit more work. In fact, you need to add a thesis statement somewhere near the beginning of your essay that provides your own opinion on the topic, so that you can tie everything else you've said (which is really interesting) back to it. Your problem at the moment is that your essay doesn't support this:


Both of the people you interviewed believe that the drinking age should be lowered, not exactly a stance that jibes with the idea that drinking is more harmful than otherwise. If anything, your point seems to be that drinking in moderation is perfectly fine, and that drinking only becomes a problem when done to excess, something that is less likely to happen if kids are allowed to do it earlier. You need to either change your conclusion to something along those lines, or else alter your examples to back up the conclusion you have now.

Poetry / William Blake Poetry Paper [23]

Well, what if some of the "Major" statements were to become "Topic" statements that you then backed up with new "Major" statements. That should give you, let's see, up to five more topic sentences to join the couple you already have . . . you might lose one or two in the transition, I suppose, which would give you . . . . let's see . . . about six, I believe.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]

We responded fully to both of the thread owner's posts. The thread has since become a rather extended digression, I admit, but those of us participating are enjoying it, and the original poster has not been harmed. I could see your point if the person who opened the thread had posted an essay that got lost in the shuffle, but she didn't -- she merely gave the topic in her first post, then the instructions for the assignment in her second. You know how little help we generally give people who do that anyway. Usually, that sort of thing is followed by a comment to the effect of either "google the topic and do some research" or else "we're not here to do the work for you. Try your best in a first draft and post it here." Given that, I'd say that the conversation, before it got off-topic, probably got her more advice than she would otherwise have received without actually posting any of her own work for revision.

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]


Why does the search for truth matter to anyone? In this case, though, I have several reasons for defending this particular theory:

1) It is, as I said, really powerful. I'm not sure you realize just how powerful and useful a theory evolution is. It explains resistances that evolve in bacteria and vermin, as I've mentioned. It unifies the whole field of biology. It predicted genetics, and is therefore implicated in every form of biotech we have and are ever going to develop. It can be applied to the study of cultures, enriching anthropology and sociology. I recently read an excellent article that explained the existence of religion in evolutionary terms, for instance. It is opening up new vistas in computer science, too. Evolutionary algorthims have been used to create programs that can create better designs for various machines than humans can think of. They are being adapted as we speak to create a program that will be able to come up with new scientific theories.

2) There is no scientific case against evolution. Unfortunately, there are pseudoscientific arguments advanced by religious zealots that can easily lead people astray, as it were, who don't have a scientific background. It's one thing for a person to refuse to accept truths that make him or her psychologically uncomfortable. It is quite another to try to drag other people away from the light of knowledge and into the darkness of ignorance. I intensely dislike deception and falsehood, and the creationist case consists mostly of those two things. I suppose what it comes down to is that I don't believe anyone who has seriously considered the science impartially and with an open mind could actually reject the theory of evolution. This puts it in a category of it own, as far as I am concerned. I don't feel that way about, say, abortion, gun control, euthanasia, stem cell research, whether God exists, or any of the other controversial issues that sometimes crop up on this site. I have opinions on them, of course, but I understand that there is a genuine case to be made for both sides, and that the people who disagree with me may do so in good faith, as it were. Whereas, on this issue, I believe the people who disagree with me know perfectly well they are wrong -- they just don't want to accept the implications of the theory, and so refuse to admit it. Which leads us to . . .

3) The people who argue against evolution don't really disbelieve in it as a scientific theory. They disbelieve in science itself, as Nicholas's last post makes perfectly evident. They suspect that if science is wholly embraced by the public, religion must wither and die. In this, they might be right, I suppose. Still, if the choice is between science and religion, between the 21st century and the 14th, I know which one I'd choose. This too seems like a choice between two such different things that it is worth defending the right choice.


I am not foisting my beliefs on anybody. I am merely making sure that anyone who reads this thread will have access to both sides of the issue -- the case I have made, and the case Nicholas has made. If you believe that I have the stronger case, and that therefore most readers will tend to agree with me, well, then, that's encouraging to hear, but being the most convincing poster on the forum is not the same as foisting. That would require me to, say, to start deleting posts I disagreed with.

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]


No one believes that the first cell had that much genetic information. The first single-celled organisms were very simple, and gradually became more complex over time. How the first single-celled organisms arose is a matter of scientific debate, but eventually we will succeed at replicating the process in a lab, and then we'll know.


Exactly, the phenotypical differences don't matter, only the genetic ones. Same with the snake. There are other species that exist even now that look like snakes, yet are not snakes because their genetic make-up is so different. So, over time, a dog could easily evolve into a snake-like organism, one that would be a unique species. It would be very unlikely, though, to evolve into a snake. Species evolve into new species, not into each other.


No, you asserted it. You couldn't prove it, because it isn't true. This is not a one-off experiment that no one can replicate. Anyone who has access to a basic lab (or who wants to set one up in his basement, for that matter) can carry out the experiments described in the first article on the website I pointed you to, and see for themselves that mutations can indeed add information to a genome. This is the great power of science -- no matter how strongly you personally refuse to believe something, anyone who really wants to know the truth can verify the science for themselves.


Excellent, and where did God come from? You could say He always existed, of course, but then why not just say the universe always existed? That would be simpler.

Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. You admit that you prefer faith to reason, religion to science, and that is perfectly all right -- you have a right to think that way, if you wish. However, that way of thinking is always a form of deliberate closed-mindedness, and makes continuing the debate with you pointless. Fortunately, I knew that in advance, and was not hoping to convince you. I merely wanted to ensure that other people using this forum who stumbled on this thread would see both sides of the issue. In one sense, Creationists are not worth refuting, and are better off just being ignored. Evolution is sound science, and its power as a theory ensures it, or some variation thereof, will always be the bedrock of modern biology. In that way, Creationists are sort of like communities that shun the use of technology -- quaint, and sort of amusing to those of us who are not a part of them, but otherwise harmless, in that they are unlikely to convince humanity to suddenly revert to pre-industrial times. Still, too many today lack the critical thinking skills to counter Creationist arguments without some help, so here we are.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]



Hmmmm . . . you want me to agree that consciousness is more fundamental than matter, but you cannot tell what consciousness is, nor do you have the ability to define it. Well, now, how about if I said to you, say, do you believe that glorschampf is better in a kitchen than set of knives? You might reply, what is glorschampf? And if I in turn said "I cannot explain it to you, or define the term, but I think you know what I mean"how then would you respond? Presumably, you would say something along the lines of "I know what knives are, and how they are used, and from my own experience can say that they are useful in the kitchen. As for this glorschampf, I do not know what you mean by it, and moreover, by your own admission, you do not what you mean by it. Not only can I not agree with your assertion, but I strongly suspect that it isn't even a meaningful statement that I should take seriously.

Now, at the moment I see no difference between the circumstances in my example and the ones in our present circumstances. I honestly have no idea what you mean when you use the term "consciousness." You said it was that which had dreams, yet argue that we rarely have conscious control of dreams. You say it is synonymous with intelligence, but I would have said that it seems rather to be a by-product of intelligence, and not a very useful one in many cases. Then you stated that any intelligence would dream, yet I see no reason why this should be, either. Since, by your own admission, you cannot define it yourself, I am not quite sure why you should think I can somehow define it for you, or that, if I could, my definition would be one you would agree with. If you want me to agree that consciousness can be more fundamental than matter, you are first going to have to explain to me what consciousness is. I suppose if anything, I would think of consciousness as the equivalent of software, and the brain as the equivalent of the hardware that runs it. I don't understand how you could have software with no material medium to record it, or that could run itself without hardware, and it seems to me that this is what you are asking me to believe -- that software came about and dreamt the hardware it needed to run into existence. I find that difficult to accept, for reasons that should be obvious.

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]


Actually, even if the first single-celled creatures were magically created however many billion of years ago, evolution would still work just fine at explaining how they evolved into us. As it is, there are several scientific theories as to how those first single-celled creatures got going, none of which involve magic.


That part of the article is describing the state of affairs that existed before the experiment described in the rest of the article.


Yes, several examples appear in the articles that I pointed you to. In fact, the very first one explains how you can do this is a lab with bacteria by getting them to evolve a resistance to a particular chemical. It also explains why the arguments against this example by the people you cited are wrong. Many of the other articles deconstruct the Creationist arguments in even more detail.


Lol, that's cute.


Indeed it does. In fact, that's why some species have essentially stopped evolving, and are still the same as they were millions of years ago. That the process could and sometimes does go in a circle doesn't mean it always does.


Again, you just don't understand the theory of evolution. Or how genetics works in general, for that matter. This is just wrong. Many phenotypical features have evolved independently several times (presumably because the environments of the creatures that evolved them favored them). According to your logic, wolves and chiuauas don't have the same genetic information, because they don't have the same phenotype. Yet they are genetically similar enough to be the same species, despite the apparent differences. In the same way, two creatures could be genetically different enough to be separate species, yet still have evolved to look alike.

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]


No, it says that they have managed to form them. In fact, that's the whole point of the article.


In as much as evolution is a theory meant to explain what happened afterlife arose, the theories as to how life arose are not, by definition, evolutionary. However, they are compatible with evolution. In fact, the clay theory is essentially an application of evolutionary theory to inorganic compounds.


This has nothing to do, strictly speaking, with evolution, which is a theory, as I said, as to what happens with species after they get going. That life did arise is self-evident. Evolution explains what happens after that. As it not not meant to explain more than that, its inability to do so is not a flaw.


Scientists like Dr. Lee Spetner and Dr. Werner Gitt are wrong, as virtually all serious biologists agree. The validity of the theory doesn't hinge on who has the most PhDs on its side, of course (even though the evolutionists win hands down by that standard too) but by such things as predictive power, which is firmly in favor of the theory. If you are actually interested in learning why Spetner and Gitt are wrong, feel free to read some of the articles listed here: home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm


It seems absurd to think that the earth revolves around the sun when we can clearly see that it is the sun that moves through the sky. Nevertheless, the earth does in fact revolve around the sun, and selective breeding could turn a dog into a creature very like a snake (though the chances of reaching the exact genetic code of an actual snake would be very, very slim). It could probably be got to the point where it looked exactly like a snake, though. It would of course take millions of years. I suspect you are incapable of grasping time intervals of that length.


No matter how many times you repeat something that isn't true, it remains false.


This isn't a problem for evolutionists at all. It is, however, a truthful statement about what they believe, so you should get some credit for that.

Writing Feedback / [TOEFL ESSAY ] Should the Government Provide Free College? [4]

This is pretty good for a TOEFL essay. I'd say you are in good shape for the test.

If you wanted to add some depth to your treatment of the subject matter, though, you might also explore the notion that not everyone who wants a college education deserves one, or is capable of getting one, or even understands what a college education really means. You would probably also look at the opposing side's arguments, and try to counter at least the most obvious ones. So,


But if college educated people earn more, they will also pay more taxes, so perhaps in the end the government would at least break even if it provided everyone with a high level of education? Just a thought.

Graduate / energy towards college, family personal statement/diversity statement for Law School [4]

Simone's advice is excellent. Also, it might help if you included the prompt you are answering. I notice that you said it was your "personal statement / diversity statement." A personal statement for this sort of thing would normally focus a bit more on your academic goals, instead of just touching on them at the end (and so you could omit all the things Simone suggested you omit to make room for a greater discussion of your academic aspirations). On the other hand, if they want a "diversity statement" in which you just list everything that makes you different from the other applicants, then mentioning your learning disabilities and your family might not be such a bad idea.

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]

Actually, I said there are at least two. In fact, wikipedia alone lists seven, and I imagine it is hardly comprehensive:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

And no, an experiment that has produced life has not yet been carried out. Hence my use of the future tense in my original post. However, various experiments have been carried out that indicate that such an experiment will eventually be successful. For instance, this one recently showed that the basic chemicals present on early Earth could have given rise to the basic building blocks of RNA fairly easily:

wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Essays / How can I describe this graph? [7]

I'd say the number for the Master's degree is off. The bar clearly stretches to the $60,000 mark, so either the number or the graphic is wrong. So, check the numbers from another source to find out which one is right -- the label or the bar that it is attached to, because the two are not the same.

Scholarship / "A Latin-American" - Scholarship/college essay [8]

What type of scholarship are you applying for? Some are founded by people who have very specific purposes in mind. So, some scholarships are set up to fund people who are very active in the community, or who have achieved very well academically, or who have dire financial need, or who are facing specific social barriers to higher education, and so on. So, if at all possible, find out what the point of the specific scholarship you are applying for is, and tailor your application to that. At the moment, you have a lot of good points, but you jump about from your financial needs, to your community work, to your academic goals, back to your community work, then some more on other barriers you have faced. If you are writing a general letter, it's okay to include all of that, but you should still probably decide which point is most important, and make all of the others tie in to that somehow. I'd probably go with "Community service," in that case, as you touch on it twice anyway, and your goal of getting an MBA in non-profit management ties into that fairly naturally. You might then move your discussion of the barriers your parents faced to the beginning, to talk about how that inspired you to become involved in community involvement.

That would give you a structure something like this:

A) family barriers (inspired interest in community service)
B) community service I have already done
C) desire to get an MBA (to better my ability to serve the community through non-profit work)

You'd be able to keep most of what you have now -- you'd just be moving things around a bit and polishing your transitions.

Writing Feedback / TOEFL - Prefer to work for a large company; good material rewards [7]


This part contains an error involving the use of the phrase "on the contrary." You should only use the phrase when directly contradicting what has just been said. So, you could say

Some say that, if you choose to work for a big company, you will gain more knowledge and experience. On the contrary, working for a small company can actually teach you a lot more than you would ever learn with a large firm.

I don't know if that's what you mean, though. You might just want to go with "on the other hand," like this:

"There are clearly benefits to each. If you choose to work for a big company, you will gain more knowledge and experience. On the other hand, if you choose to work for a small firm, you will have a greater chance of being promoted."

If you go with this construction, note the parallel structure between sentences.

Essays / Creationism vs. Evolution Debate [25]


Only in 2 cases: 1) Where the fossils were planted as fakes, and 2) where natural geological processes have clearly shifted the layers out of the order in which they were originally laid.


Natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. If you admit that species change over generations through natural selection, then eventually, given enough time, speciation is the logical conclusion. So, this statement is disingenuous at best.


Again, your statements betray only your own ignorance of the theories you are talking about. Evolution in no way contradicts or is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy will increase over time in an isolated system. The Earth is not an isolated system. It gets continual energy from the sun, and it is that energy that virtually all life on earth uses as fuel to build and maintain itself. Over time, of course, if we find no way to reverse the second law of thermodynamics, all life will cease followed by the rest of the universe, as it experiences heat death.


You cannot acknowledge the reality of mutation and natural selection, and then somehow claim that this disproves the theory that gives us the concepts. Sorry.


That you don't like the implications of the theory of evolution, and cannot handle the existential crisis it poses for you, are not proof that the theory is false.


There are at least two fully developed evolutionary theories that can provide an explanation. Eventually, one of them will be proved when the process is replicated in a lab.

Writing Feedback / "People of MTV generation have no patience. They want instant satisfaction." [84]

I grant your second point but not your first. I admit that the world might appear the same way if consciousness were primary, much the way the sun seems to revolve around the earth even though it doesn't. However, I deny your assertion that we cannot bend dreams to our will. We most certainly can. Once you are aware that you are dreaming, you can do whatever you like in a dream. So, if you were to achieve a state of enlightenment through meditation, and were to become aware that consciousness were primary rather than matter, then you really should be able to leap off of tall buildings, or manifest an apple. That people don't do these things, and fairly consistently, still therefore seems to me to be a strong case against your argument.

Also, what do you mean by consciousness? Because I thought that consciousness didn't do anything. Our conscious minds don't create dreams, for instance. For that matter, one could argue that consciousness is merely an artifact of intelligence. That is, an intelligent being will become conscious as a result of the exercise of its intelligence. However, the consciousness may not be a particular asset, or even useful for anything. It may even be a weakness, an unfortunate cost that must be paid for the really useful thing (intelligence) much as feces are the unfortunate by-product of our metabolic system, something we have to produce in order to get the really useful thing (energy). This seems to be a particularly good analogy, actually. So, why are you arguing that a phenomenon that, for all we can tell, is the mental equivalent of feces, should be treated as a primary force in the universe?

Writing Feedback / Machine Learning versus Learning by Humans [51]

I so want to make a pun here about your losing your marbles, but politeness forbids it. That, btw, is an example of paralipsis.


Of course I have an awareness of what experiences and influences in my life have shaped my current beliefs. I just see no reason to go into them in most cases. For instance, in discussing, say, the arguments in an essay about abortion (a topic that rarely comes up here, praise whatever deity you believe in), I see no reason to explain how I came to embrace a pro-choice position, despite having, when I was in my undergrad, a very strongly pro-life position. The shift in my thinking would probably be interesting to my close friends who wanted to get to know me better, but it wouldn't be particularly interesting to random students trying to figure out the pro-choice/pro-life arguments for their essay.


You believe in determinism, then. What an interesting outlook to choose to believe in. :-)

Writing Feedback / Toefl: Is this good enough to get 24 score in writing section. [3]

Aye, the more concise the better, as multiple writers have noted. However, your fix for the sentence changes his original meaning, which clearly contrasted the use of the money as pocket money with the use of the money as support for studies, rather than treating them as the same idea. He could have gone with

"This money can be used for pocket money, for their studies, or for helping their parents."

which is actually better in that it is more parallel than my original suggestion, while still preserving the original meaning. I felt that the two "or"s in my first correction were justified, though, as the first two items in the list contrast with each other, whereas both contrast with the third, which does not benefit the student himself directly as the first two do. This also explains my comma usage there, btw.