Reply To: TPO28 Task1

Administrator
University: University of Wisconsin
February 10, 2021 at 6:52 pm

Both the reading and [ the  ]lecture discuss whether Peary reached the North Pole [or not   ]. The author[specify the context of the author   ] supports Peary’s claim (due to three arguments)[ unclear  ]. Yet, the professor cast doubts on these arguments, concluding they were (not convincing.)[avoid using Not   ]

First of all, Peary’s consistent and persuasive accounts (in the committee)[unclear   ] declared the truth of [validate   ]Peary’s claim (in the passage)[ unclear  ]. However, according to the lecture, the professor challenged[ present tense is fine  ] (this argument)[  unclear ]. She claimed [ tense issue  ]that this committee consisted of Peary’s friends. Hence, the claims[ word form error  ] of this[/the   ] committee were (not completely objective)[ avoid using NOT  ]. Meanwhile, it[ unclear pronoun  ] only had two parts, which[ unclear pronoun  ] were biased (for the result)[ unclear  ].

Moreover, since Tom Avery made the same trek in less[wrong word   ] than 37 days, the passage[ specify: passage can mean different things  ] claimed[ tense error  ] that (Peary’s reaching as possible)[ unclear/grammatical error  ]. Conversely, the professor opposed[tense error   ] this argument as well. She said that what Avery experienced were[ grammatical error  ] too[ wrong adverb: too…to  ] different from Peary’s (condition)[wrong word   ]. For example, although they[unclear pronoun   ] used the[article error   ] (same kind of dogsled and the number and breed of dogs)[sentence structure issue   ], Avery (spent less)[unclear: time, money, energy?   ], (such as no transforming food)[ unclear/grammatical error  ]. Hence, it[unclear pronoun   ] was an unfair condition[ wrong word  ] to compare them[ unclear pronoun  ]. In other words, (what Avery spent)[ use a noun or noun phrase  ] (could not)[ avoid using NOT  ] support Peary’s accounts.

Finally, the (reading)[ unclear  ] argued[ tense error  ] that (the photographs)[ new, unclear information  ] supported[tense error   ] the truth of Peary’s claim. (By measuring the shadows of[ article error  ] photographs, calculating_[ dangling  ] the Sun’s position was possible. However, the professor disagreed[ tense error  ] with the usefulness of this [ accurate  ]method. The method measuring shadow was precise. She claimed[ tense error  ] that the[ article error  ] photographs faded [ grammatical error  ]over [ the course of  ]time. Therefore, photographs produced 100 years ago were[ tense error  ] useless to compute the Sun’s position in the sky. Hence, the results of this method could not[ avoid using NOT  ] support [repetition   ]Peary’s claim.