• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Help with english essay

Status
Not open for further replies.
sfbloodbrother

sfbloodbrother

Extreme Android User
Hi all. So, I have this english essay due on monday. I have the main essay all written, and everything, but the teacher did not give us enough time to revise the essay from the draft from the tutors at school. That annoys me because I don't have an english major look over my essay and give me feedback to better my essay. So, as I said, this is due monday, and today is Friday, so I have to revise the essay and all, but I do not wait to the last minute. Would any of you be willing to read over my essay and give me feedback? I would greatly appreciate it.

The essay is a response to John Millers essay about organic food. You don't have to read that part, as I'm fairly sure the summary is alright. I just followed the outline that we did in class. The summary is the part that I want feedback on. This is the response to the article on organic food. I am against organic food, and I have stated 3 reasons that organic food is not good.
1 inefficient
2 expensive
3 usda proves it is not healthier than non-organic food.

Here is my summary of Millers essay:
Here is a link to the essay, feel free to comment on the essay here on Google drive.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ldGY8Qri7fccaKLDuV_mpwyUoXzlC1pjcMjutQowr8U/edit?usp=sharing
 
sf, I'm not exactly sure what type of feedback you want. Structural feedback--such as grammar/spelling issues--or content feedback, such as a critique of the actual contents.
 
MoodyBlues said:
sf, I'm not exactly sure what type of feedback you want. Structural feedback--such as grammar/spelling issues--or content feedback, such as a critique of the actual contents.
Click to expand...

Content feedback mostly. That's what I need. Does my essay provide a good stance on being against organic food and taking the side that non-organic food is for the better. That's mainly the feedback I am looking for.
 
The last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph is, “Lastly, there is no proof that organic food is healthier than non-organic food.”

Then, the first sentence of the next paragraph is, “There is no scientific proof that organic food is no healthier than non-organic food.”

Besides being almost the same sentence, they’re actually making a strange contradiction: the first has ‘there is no proof that organic food is healthier,’ and the second has ‘There is no scientific proof that organic food is no healthier.’ All that leads to reader confusion.

And toward the end, you say, “but not so much good for us.” I suggest, “but not necessarily good for us.”

I think it’s otherwise well written, interesting as well.
 
Hi! Kind of funny because I am not a native English speaking, but here are my two cents :D
First of all; an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

I would take the last part of the sentence with the second 'warm and fuzzy feeling' on the first page out.

Fyi... the USA population grows with 3 billion each year.

When you're telling about your whole foods visit: make sure Whole Foods is with two capitals.

'If there is no proof that organic food is healthier, than why...?' Isn't it ' then'?
 
Kaat72 said:
Hi! Kind of funny because I am not a native English speaking, but here are my two cents :D
First of all; an interesting read. Thanks for sharing.

I would take the last part of the sentence with the second 'warm and fuzzy feeling' on the first page out.

Fyi... the USA population grows with 3 billion each year.

When you're telling about your whole foods visit: make sure Whole Foods is with two capitals.

'If there is no proof that organic food is healthier, than why...?' Isn't it ' then'?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I don't know about billion, maybe million you mean. And you are right about the then, and than.
 
. You've used basically the same sentence, "organic food is [or is not] healthier than non-organic food," many times. It seems repetitive and almost like you're trying to reach a certain word count. :eek: :)


But this has nothing to do with it being organic, just that it is more fresh.
Click to expand...
That should be "just that it is fresher."


. Check again for the then/than misuse.


In an article by an anonymous poster on the web, stats that
Click to expand...


. Bearing in mind that it's been a thousand years since I wrote an essay, I THINK you're supposed to put a comma before quoting something. For example:
In an article on the web from an anonymous writer he/she states
Click to expand...
 
MoodyBlues said:
. You've used basically the same sentence, "organic food is [or is not] healthier than non-organic food," many times. It seems repetitive and almost like you're trying to reach a certain word count. :eek: :)



That should be "just that it is fresher."


. Check again for the then/than misuse.





. Bearing in mind that it's been a thousand years since I wrote an essay, I THINK you're supposed to put a comma before quoting something. For example:

should have a comma after "states."
Click to expand...

Thanks a bunch. I will go head and change these mistakes.
 
Hmmm... ass hake Stinky is going to give his -5 cents here! :)

The 2nd sentence.

Despite that, millions of people continue to assume that organic food is healthier than non-organic food because they grow in sterile conditions.
Click to expand...
I think you should replace "non-organic" with inorganic pronto. :-)

This is much better and concise English to me at least. :)

I see a very small minor tiny error here and there too but no biggie! ;)

There is a slight grammatic hick up some where here too I think?

I think the syntax is also slightly off... some... where here.

Try this maybe?: (2nd sentence in the 1st paragraph. :))

... Despite this and on the contrary to popular belief, millions of people continue to assume organic food is more nutritious than inorganic foods - possibly due to the inorganic food's growth in sterile conditions.
Click to expand...
When you say "they" you are not exactly distinct or very descriptive about which type of food you might be talking about.

I guess you mean inorganic because it is grown in a germ free zone. :)

"They" could refer to a) inorganic or b) organic but I think you mean inorganic. :)

What I am trying to say is this part here:

healthier than non-organic food because they grow in sterile conditions.
Click to expand...
"they" has not been 100% clarified or is not totally distinct.

I don't really know. :)

Just rename it to organic if it is. :D

I am not a legend at English but I am trying - hope I helped you out some what. :D

xD

Awesome read so far - I really like your style and the topic!

Great so far!

Checking the rest... brb!

:-)
 
Maybe I can help you here some where else?

You can add to the 3rd sentence with some slight adjustments.

This we can change a bit:

According to the National Organic Rule there are not to be any synthetic fertilizers, no conventional pesticides, no growth hormones, no genetic engineering, and no germ killing radiation.
Click to expand...
You are using an ever so slight bit of repetition here!

:)

Would you like to give my recommendation below a stab to maybe start the creativity juices flowing so you can add on if you wish?

As important and interesting as this phenomenon may seem, food manufacturers and / or producers (take your pick! :)) alike all over the country must abide or adhere to these specific rules that state there must be no artificial / synthetic fertilisers, conventional / traditional (take your pick again! :)) pesticides, growth hormones, genetic engineering and last but certainly not least - there must also be no irradiation.
Click to expand...

Did that maybe help?

I think you can replace "germ killing radiation" with a single word - irradiation because I think that the subject's definition.

Hope this helps! :-)

:D

It is looking very good so far! ;)

I like your style. :)
 
Kaat72 said:
Hey :D How did this essay turn out?
Click to expand...

It is a mystery! :)

This is a job for Scooby Doo - the unauthorized group young kids and their talking dog!


Doo dee daaah - come on talking dog! :)

Come on Scooby Doo! We got some "crazies" to harass and throw in JAIL. :)

(TALK about the pot calling the kettle black ek se! :D HOW ironic!!!!! xD I am LOVIN it bruizer!!!)

Come on Scoob! :)

Let's go and harass that old man reading the news paper over there!

QUICKLY.

I am SURE he has got a GUN under that hat!!!

What an EVIL man!! :mad:
 
Dngrsone said:
why are we replying to a seven year old thread?
Click to expand...
Because this forum, unlike many others, does not lock ancient threads. Then someone arrives here from a search, lands in a thread relating to their issue, and posts away, without ever noticing its original date, or its last reply's date. Personally, I dislike this--and have been vocal about it on the Feedback board!
 
Yeah I would think the OP finished their homework a very long time ago.
IMO it is somewhat disruptive when this happens, it would be nice if everyone would follow good forum etiquette and look at post dates before replying to moldy old threads, but alas that doesn't always happen.
 
I agree, @Fox Mulder. The problem, as I see it, is as I said: people arrive via a search, so they're already -in- the thread that pertains to their issue, and they start posting away. Or, worse, they're reading one thread and a list of 'related' threads shows up at the bottom of their screen--they pick one and start posting...but its last reply was 10 years ago. *sigh* (And, yes, I've bitched about that, too. I think that's been corrected somewhat; I'm not sure, because I trained myself to just ignore them.)

At the very least, TPTB could programmatically trap new posts on ancient threads. For example, say an OP's date is older than X, and the last reply in the thread was posted on Y. When someone starts writing a new reply, a warning could pop up saying 'this thread was posted X years ago and hasn't been updated since Y, so it may not be relevant now' or something like that. Of course they'd have to check to make sure it was actually stagnant--we have a lot of threads that were created years ago but are still actively being used. So the pop-up would only apply if X was more than whatever time period and Y indicates it's no longer current.

I know I'm not the only one who gets irritated by resurrected threads. I mean, it's one thing if the new addition is actually pertinent somehow, relevant, you know? But when someone's posting in a thread about a phone that ceased production 10 years ago, and whose original issue was fixed 10 years ago!, it just bugs me. :rolleyes:
 
So sometime in June a spammer hit this thread which was dead since 2013. A regular member quoted the spammer unbeknownst to moderators, which has already waxed the spammer. Why the thread gained traction today makes no sense, but the quoted spam has been deleted and the thread is closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom