Post 12

1. Original: For example, Borre, a leading researcher at the Laboratory of NeuroGastroenterology in Cork, Ireland, notes improvement in patients with gluten-induced rheumatoid arthritis—a disease normally thought to be permanent (514). Revised: For example, Borre, a leading researcher at the Laboratory of NeuroGastroenterology in Cork, Ireland, provides evidence that avoiding gluten cures diseases normally thought to be permanent when he notes that many patients with gluten-induced rheumatoid arthritis (a permanent disease) improved when they eliminated gluten from their diet (514). Commentary: I changed the sentence to show the purpose of the example.

2. Original: According to Hadjivassiliou, a researcher at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital’s Department of Neurology in Sheffield, UK who specializes in the connection between gluten-related disorders and neurological disorders, gluten-related disorders affect up to 9% of the population (2010, 327). Revised: Hadjivassiliou, a specialist in the connection between gluten-related disorders and neurological disorders at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital’s Department of Neurology in Sheffield, UK, reports that gluten-related disorders affect up to 9% of the population (2010, 327). Commentary: I changed how I worded part of the sentence and added a more descriptive word to show the purpose of the sentence.

3. Original: Hadjivassiliou notes that the new discoveries apply only to blood tests and include examining not only a person’s DNA, but also recognizing the presence of IgA antibodies in the blood (2004, 580). Revised: Hadjivassiliou describes these recent discoveries when he reveals that the new tests examine both a person’s DNA and detect IgA antibodies, which form in response to ingested gluten in people with gluten-related disorders (Hadjivassiliou (2004) 580). Commentary: I used a more descriptive verb, added why IgA antibodies are indicators of a gluten-related disorder, and moved the part about blood tests to the next sentence.

4. Original: Bengmark remarks that three main tests are used for determining if one possesses a gluten-related disorder: a blood test, a gastrointestinal biopsy, and a cheek swab. Revised: Bengmark asserts that three main tests are used for determining if one possesses a gluten-related disorder: a blood test, a gastrointestinal biopsy, and a cheek swab (112). Commentary: I used a more descriptive word.

5. Original: Hadjivassiliou notes that blood tests, gastrointestinal biopsies, and cheek swabs examine a person’s DNA for the presence of one of two different genes—the two different genes corresponding to the two different types of gluten-related disorders (2004, 580). Revised: Hadjivassiliou explains that blood tests, gastrointestinal biopsies, and cheek swabs examine a person’s DNA for the presence of one of two different genes—the two different genes corresponding to the two different types of gluten-related disorders (2004, 580). Commentary: I used a better descriptive word.

Post 11

I watched Pamela Meyer’s How to Spot a Liar. Meyer wrote a book titled “How to Spot a Liar,” which, from what I gathered, provides different techniques on how to spot a liar without utilizing lie-detecting machines. The main thesis of her talk (and perhaps her book?) is that telling the truth creates better consequences for both yourself and others than telling lies. She begins her argument by demonstrating that lying is something in which everyone frequently participates. For example, she cites a study which found that “strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other.” After establishing lying as an activity that everyone engages in, she show that lying, although sometimes only a white lie, is dangerous. For example, she mentions that according to British Authorities, Henry Oberlander, a sly conman skilled in effective lying, “could have undermined the entire banking system of the Western world.” After giving a few more examples, she teaches the audience a few tricks on how to detect when someone is lying. Overall I found the argument rather convincing. However, Meyer’s mentions that some white lies are not only harmless, but helpful. In other words, to strengthen her argument, she needs to better clarify if all lying should be avoided or if certain lies should be avoided or something else entirely.

Link: https://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar/transcript?language=en#t-237000

Post 10

Researchers have recently established the existence of non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Non-celiac gluten sensitivity differs from celiac disease in that ingested gluten does not induce an immunological attack. However, non-celiac gluten sensitivity accords with celiac disease in that ingested gluten causes many of the same disease that celiac disease does. However, study in this area is extremely new—within the last 10 years.  Although a few theories exist, researchers remain unsure how non-celiac gluten sensitivity can cause many of the same diseases without inducing an immunological attack. In addition, further research into this connection is necessary considering non-celiac gluten sensitivity may affect up to 10% of the population.  

While accumulating sources for my literature review on the connection between celiac disease and neurological disorders, I came across two general and mutually compatible theories on how celiac disease causes a range of neurological disorders. One of the theories named not an immunological attack as the cause by which celiac disease caused other disorders, but damaged gut microbiota as the cause behind the connection. Before writing my literature review, I had no opinion on the mechanism by which non-celiac disease caused many of the same disorders associated with celiac disease. Yet, after researching the literature, I believe, for a few reasons, this theory is how non-celiac gluten sensitivity causes many of the same disorders associated celiac disease.

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.