Part 3

One Response to Part 3

1. Parvena says:

   April 20, 2013 at 11:33 pm

   1. The length (quality) of your paper is on the low side. You were suppose to incorporate the research you have done (part 2) into the response piece (part 1) which is on average 400 to 800 words. The new section (Part 2) should have add roughly 200-400 words to your Part 1. Total for the piece should be roughly 600-1000 words, the lower end if you have few quotes and/or paraphrases, the upper end otherwise. You have 851 words which is good. You only mentioned 2 sentences from your part 1 assignment.
   2. In a David Brooks’ column, “The Philosophy of Data,” he claims that data performs well in two areas: First, data “is really good at exposing when out intuitive view of reality is wrong” and “Second, it can illuminate patterns of behaviors we have not yet noticed” (Brooks, 2013). – two long of a sentence- run on sentence, try making it into two sentences.
   3. “big data does poorly” and in many aspects that it cannot always handle big problems, -reword this sentence. It is confusing.
   4. I would suggest you change the way you began your introduction…you went straight into mentioning “the result of your study about data” reword it, it’s confusing…What study? What data? These questions come to mind as a reader when reading your paper. You should specify what the study is and present the data.
   5. First talk about Brook’s two articles, then your study (your two articles) and data as well as the result and how it relates to Brook’s articles. Then your conclusion.
   6. You have the same transition word “also” used twice in two sentences that are one after another.
   7. You have used the word “However” twice when starting of your sentence and have not explained your quotes. I see you mentioned and critiqued that as a comment on my paper but haven’t done the same for your own =) You can use however, since it is a transition word…also quotes do not have to be explained, the man who came to our class regarding writing techniques had told us this…he said that if we put a quote we don’t have to explain it since the quote states the idea that you want to portray and explaining the quote will be repetition. You have to use either, or but not both. Also I noticed that you did not use a thesis sentence either as you critiqued in my paper at the end of your introduction instead you talked about Brook’s second article. I don’t think we need a thesis since this is paper and not a formatted essay. We were told to have fun with this assignment in regards to learning more about the usage of data.
   8. State your study clearly, the data found on the study and the result of the study. It’s very confusing. You talk about weather, but what exactly about weather is being studied …what are the two components the vice versa such as in Brook’s example the result if the CEO stayed or if he had left would be the two vice versa components being looked at and the data that follows it as well as the result of each and which was better in regards to data. As a reader it’s very confusing to establish this in your paper. I suggest you organize it to make it clearer to view these points and your transition to each sentence.
   9. What is your research based upon…what topic in regards to Brook’s?….I know it’s about weather but what about weather…. State your focus clearly …what were you trying to portray? I agree weather has a lot to do with weather but I don’t get the reasoning of why you chose topic. It would be nice to state for your readers to know and which of Brook’s statements or examples in his two articles brought you to this research? It needs to be stated clearer.
   I find your topic to be vague rather than precise. Try working with it so it’s more precise in regards to your focus… Keep in mind Brook’s mentioned that it depends on that individual and there situation in regards to data.
   10. “we then could decide when we are supposed to provide it”…weather is provided everyday…weatherman can’t choose when to provide it and when not too. =)

   Overall your paper was good. I loved the way you wrote just need to be more clearer and organized and have more input on Brook’s articles from Part 1

   Reply