Haha - once again, all I will say is that you are disagreeing with something I never said. Ever since, I have been trying to rectify your misconception (and various other flaws purely because I became impatient). That, and that having graduated last year, I am hardly recalcitrant lol.
Side note: I don't believe I relied on moral superiority (sanctimonious) or ethos/pathos (by arguing ad hominem) at all... and I further disagree - empiricism indicates merely correlation; conclusions are very different (and subjective).
Tell a struggling student to be more "definitive", and they'll have no idea what you're talking about. You may as well summarise this drivel into 2 words: "wRiTe Better"
What I meant by saying writing 'definitively' is more simplistically - to focus on what you're trying to say, rather than how you're saying it. I gave clear examples of where I thought this was lacking, and obviously would have gone into more depth had I thought Chavi would have appreciated my advice (which somehow I doubt.).
There was a forum member "gonzo" who might have been from your school, reckoned he got a 50 simply by dazzling the examiners. (I know "bebobebo", who shared
good my taste in films was at your school.)
[/quote]
unsure who bebobebo is, but I certainly write (and advocate writing) in more or less the opposite way. I very rarely used words not found in everyday (albeit well-educated) language, and encourage complexity of ideas conveyed through clear and concise language.
Home
Help
Search
Login
