Post 9

Thirty years ago, researchers discovered that celiac disease causes musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, neurological, reproductive, and endocrine disorders. However, researchers remain unsure how celiac disease, which originates from the gut, can cause such a large variety of disorders. This confusion has resulted in a range of arguments (or perhaps hypotheses?) exploring how celiac disease can cause such a large array of disorders and why celiac disease affects people so differently. Another major argument regarding celiac disease asks whether all people need to be tested for celiac disease. The two answers are, obviously, yes or no, but researchers differ in their reasoning for both answers. In addition, a third major argument asks whether all people need to avoid gluten. Again, the answers here are yes or no, but researchers differ in their reasoning for both answers. I am unsure which of these three arguments (if any) I shall use. All of the arguments contain ample information and views to write a successful argument, however, the first argument may be more challenging than the latter two arguments because it contains the most information. Yet, I may choose the first argument only because sorting through the information and putting together my own argument sounds semi-fun (in my head anyway).

Post 8

The major revision recommended by both graders was to change my paper from a research paper to a literature review. To accomplish this revision I need to synthesize and review my sources instead of just presenting the information. Further, instead of weaving together quotes from my sources, I need to rewrite the information in my own words. One grader also recommended I check the accuracy of my source citing. To fix this problem I need to fix the way I cited the same author with different articles. Both of my critiques suggested I use less technical language. I will address this concern by changing the quotations into more understandable terms using my own words. Another critique was to use some keywords less. I agree, but had difficulty the first time around because there was no other way to say celiac disease or neurological disorders. Nevertheless, I will look for ways to rephrase my sentences in order to use those words less. Also both a grader and one of my critiques recommend I revise run-on sentences in my paper. I will address this concern by changing any run-on sentences remaining after I change my paper into a literature review…or try to anyway!

Post 7

Unbeknownst to me, although entirely my fault, I wrote a research paper instead of a literature review. Although I examined the book’s examples before beginning my paper, I missed the difference between a research paper and a literature review, particularly the part that mentioned a literature reviews the literature—hence the name (duh, Piper, get with it). Thus, my first major revision includes turning my paper into a literature review by synthesizing information and commenting on the importance of sources. As far as organization goes, the other person in the index-card activity organized my information the same way I did, not because I am a master paragraph organizer, but because the organization makes logical sense. In other words, the one sub-topic within my paper naturally feeds into the other sub-topic. So, although my organization shall remain the same, I will need to revise the content of each paragraph, including the introduction and conclusion. I may also add a paragraph before the conclusion discussing the puzzling conclusion of my topic and a few recent experimental solutions. Further revisions will include making my paper smoother and easier to read by deleting unnecessary words, changing negatives to positives, and using the active voice and stronger verbs where possible.

Post 6

After critiquing three other literature reviews, including the one in class, I realize the importance of constructing a thesis statement that matches the information in your paper. If the thesis statement does not match the information in the paper or the information in the paper does not match the thesis statement, the paper’s clarity is compromised. In other words, I need to work on making sure both my thesis statement and my information match each other lest my paper be confusing. Another error I saw was including irrelevant information—information that has no purpose in your paper. I also need to make sure that all of my information is both relevant to my topic and has a purpose in my paper. Further, all three papers contained wordy sentences, grammatical errors and undifferentiated sentences—all errors of which I am guilty and errors that take away from a paper’s clarity. I first need to simplify my sentences by either removing unnecessary words, restructuring the sentences to be more concise, or using the active voice where possible. I also need to look for grammatical errors and make sure my sentence structure is varied. Also, in contrast to the papers I critiqued, I used a significantly higher amount of quotations and much less interpretation and paraphrasing. I’m unsure if I need to limit my quotation use or perhaps my larger quotation use was just a reflection of my topic? I do not know, but I do need to look over my paper to see if limiting the amount of quotations would create a better paper.