Chendal
New member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2015
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- Canada
- Current Location
- Canada
Today, my teacher handed back my written proposal on the theme of ideas of progress, which addressed the subject on the debate of transhumanism.
Unfortunately, he told me that the usage of vocabulary and the structure of my sentence and paragraphs are not supposed to be overly well written. He said and I quote, “we are 16-17 years old and should not be writing as if we it was a PhD type research paper”. I found this to be very disturbing and unjustified. Hence, the reason why I am here today seeking further clarification on the judgement brought upon my paper.
The main problem that has been raised, is the fact that I have used a set of academically styled vocabulary in an excessive manner. I agree that this may be truthful. However, I find that the harshly barred out fragments of my paper have been treated disproportionately to the actual stylistic flaw. In the introduction, there might be a usage of sophisticated vocabulary, though the core is completely relevant, clear and to the point. Yet, the professor put question marks above certain words that had proper reasoning and importance in the sentence.
Afterwards, I heard his explanation and I found it to show the lack of comprehension and faulty interpretation of the sentence.
- Here is the only fragment of a paragraph that has been questioned, other than punctuation leading to the off-topic type of barring on the whole paragraph:
“As much as the theme of the ideas of progress, projects a very aspiring, positive and courageous trajectory of human endeavors; it also entangles both ambivalent and controversial debates.”
- ‘Ambivalent’ was used because the transhumanism debate raises a diversity of conflicting reactions which contains positive and negative approaches.
- ‘Controversial’ the teacher pointed out that any debate is controversial. However, this is not true. For example, a debate on the adoption of school uniform does not need to be controversial, it is a yes or no debate. A debate on uniform differs immensely from a debate on let’s say on euthanasia. Hence, the reasoning behind why I chose to use illustrate my debate with the word controversial.
Here is the whole paragraph showcasing my writing style (introduction) :
“Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals [...] It can also buildgigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm tossed humanvessel”, says Bryan, a former United States Secretary of State. As much as the theme of the ideasof progress, projects a very aspiring, positive and courageous trajectory of human endeavours; italso entangles both ambivalent and controversial debates. In virtue of this, adopting a positionengulfing rigorous criticism and moralities, is quintessential following the undertaking of suchprogress. Furthermore, in the last century, the disastrous repercussions ensuing the majorinnovation of nuclear power left the world completely shell-shocked. Hence, assessing from amoral and ethical viewpoint, the next revolutionary scientific advancement of our century, willallow us to leap forward with precaution.
If someone could please help me understand why this whole paragraph was barred out for stylistic reasons, it would be greatly appreciated.
Also, if someone would like to read the rest of my essay I would happily transmit it to you.
Thank you for your time,
Unfortunately, he told me that the usage of vocabulary and the structure of my sentence and paragraphs are not supposed to be overly well written. He said and I quote, “we are 16-17 years old and should not be writing as if we it was a PhD type research paper”. I found this to be very disturbing and unjustified. Hence, the reason why I am here today seeking further clarification on the judgement brought upon my paper.
The main problem that has been raised, is the fact that I have used a set of academically styled vocabulary in an excessive manner. I agree that this may be truthful. However, I find that the harshly barred out fragments of my paper have been treated disproportionately to the actual stylistic flaw. In the introduction, there might be a usage of sophisticated vocabulary, though the core is completely relevant, clear and to the point. Yet, the professor put question marks above certain words that had proper reasoning and importance in the sentence.
Afterwards, I heard his explanation and I found it to show the lack of comprehension and faulty interpretation of the sentence.
- Here is the only fragment of a paragraph that has been questioned, other than punctuation leading to the off-topic type of barring on the whole paragraph:
“As much as the theme of the ideas of progress, projects a very aspiring, positive and courageous trajectory of human endeavors; it also entangles both ambivalent and controversial debates.”
- ‘Ambivalent’ was used because the transhumanism debate raises a diversity of conflicting reactions which contains positive and negative approaches.
- ‘Controversial’ the teacher pointed out that any debate is controversial. However, this is not true. For example, a debate on the adoption of school uniform does not need to be controversial, it is a yes or no debate. A debate on uniform differs immensely from a debate on let’s say on euthanasia. Hence, the reasoning behind why I chose to use illustrate my debate with the word controversial.
Here is the whole paragraph showcasing my writing style (introduction) :
“Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals [...] It can also buildgigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm tossed humanvessel”, says Bryan, a former United States Secretary of State. As much as the theme of the ideasof progress, projects a very aspiring, positive and courageous trajectory of human endeavours; italso entangles both ambivalent and controversial debates. In virtue of this, adopting a positionengulfing rigorous criticism and moralities, is quintessential following the undertaking of suchprogress. Furthermore, in the last century, the disastrous repercussions ensuing the majorinnovation of nuclear power left the world completely shell-shocked. Hence, assessing from amoral and ethical viewpoint, the next revolutionary scientific advancement of our century, willallow us to leap forward with precaution.
If someone could please help me understand why this whole paragraph was barred out for stylistic reasons, it would be greatly appreciated.
Also, if someone would like to read the rest of my essay I would happily transmit it to you.
Thank you for your time,
Last edited by a moderator:
