ChristineB
May 8, 2015
Writing Feedback / Issue with the accidental findings of many important discoveries or creations. [5]
Hi, dunguyen. I'm not sure what the 6-point scale is, but I'll try to help you with your essay anyway.
I need to clarify exactly what it is you want to say in each paragraph. I'll try to do this for you, but I think it would be best if you did it yourself:
Paragraph 1: You disagree with calling discoveries or creations accidental because good scientists will view all experimental results as important results, whether they were expected or not.
Paragraph 2: You repeat the sentiments expressed in Paragraph 1, this time using Isaac Newton as an example.
Paragraph 3: To me, the first sentence of this paragraph contradicts your thesis - it needs to be reworded to maintain consistency. You go on to use penicillin's and radium's discoveries as examples of how results are not "accidents," just unexpected results that are valuable to the learning process
Paragraph 4: Here, you try to show support for the other side of the argument, using Columbus and Mendel as examples of how discoveries can be "accidental." I think you need to work more on explaining why you think these two examples support the other side of the argument. To me, these examples are no different from the ones you mentioned earlier (Newton, penicillin, radium). Make your argument more solid.
Paragraph 5: A rehash of your theory that all results are meaningful (never "accidents").
If I understand you right, you are arguing that good scientists don't make "accidental discoveries." Good scientists are ready and able to make use of any and all gathered information, whether it was expected or not. It is not fair to say that scientists "usually" find answers to questions they weren't asking because good scientists don't prepare experiments with just one question in mind - they maintain an "open mind" with regard to their questions and the possible outcomes, making "accidental discoveries" impossible. Is that correct?
Once we have a clearer understanding of your thesis, we'll be better able to help.
Hi, dunguyen. I'm not sure what the 6-point scale is, but I'll try to help you with your essay anyway.
I need to clarify exactly what it is you want to say in each paragraph. I'll try to do this for you, but I think it would be best if you did it yourself:
Paragraph 1: You disagree with calling discoveries or creations accidental because good scientists will view all experimental results as important results, whether they were expected or not.
Paragraph 2: You repeat the sentiments expressed in Paragraph 1, this time using Isaac Newton as an example.
Paragraph 3: To me, the first sentence of this paragraph contradicts your thesis - it needs to be reworded to maintain consistency. You go on to use penicillin's and radium's discoveries as examples of how results are not "accidents," just unexpected results that are valuable to the learning process
Paragraph 4: Here, you try to show support for the other side of the argument, using Columbus and Mendel as examples of how discoveries can be "accidental." I think you need to work more on explaining why you think these two examples support the other side of the argument. To me, these examples are no different from the ones you mentioned earlier (Newton, penicillin, radium). Make your argument more solid.
Paragraph 5: A rehash of your theory that all results are meaningful (never "accidents").
If I understand you right, you are arguing that good scientists don't make "accidental discoveries." Good scientists are ready and able to make use of any and all gathered information, whether it was expected or not. It is not fair to say that scientists "usually" find answers to questions they weren't asking because good scientists don't prepare experiments with just one question in mind - they maintain an "open mind" with regard to their questions and the possible outcomes, making "accidental discoveries" impossible. Is that correct?
Once we have a clearer understanding of your thesis, we'll be better able to help.