TPO28 Task1
-
February 8, 2021 at 8:01 am
Both the reading and lecture discuss whether Peary reached the North Pole. The author supports Peary’s claim due to three arguments. On the other hand, the professor cast doubts on these three arguments and concluded three arguments were not convincing.
First of all, the passage said that the truth of Peary’s claim could be declared, resulted from Peary’s consistent and persuasive accounts in the committee. However, according to the lecture, the professor challenged this argument. She claimed that this committee was composed of Peary’s friends. Hence, the claims of this committee were not completely objective. Meanwhile, it only had two parts, which were biased for the result.
Moreover, the reading claimed that since Tom Avery made the same trek in less than 37 days, Peary could reach the North Pole in 37 days. Conversely, the professor opposed this argument as well. She said that what Avery experienced were too different from Peary’s condition. For example, although according to the passage, they used the same kind of dogsled and the number and breed of dogs, Avery spent less, such as no transforming food. Hence, it was an unfair condition to compare them. In other words, what Avery spent could not support Peary’s accounts.
Finally, the reading argued that the truth of Peary’s claim could be supported by photographs. By measuring the shadows of photographs, what was possible was to calculate the Sun’s position. However, the professor disagreed with the usefulness of this method. The method measuring shadow was precise. She claimed that the photographs faded over time. Therefore, photographs produced 100 years ago could not be used to compute the Sun’s position in the sky. Hence, the results of this method could not support Peary’s claim.
February 9, 2021 at 3:17 amScore: ungraded
Issues:
- About 30% of the sentences are passive; convert them into their active counterparts. (10%- qualifies for non-software TOEFL/IELTS/GRE writing revision )
I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems/errors.
February 10, 2021 at 3:32 amBoth the reading and lecture discuss whether Peary reached the North Pole. The author supports Peary’s claim due to three arguments. Yet, the professor cast doubts on these arguments, concluding they were not convincing.
First of all, Peary’s consistent and persuasive accounts in the committee declared the truth of Peary’s claim in the passage. However, according to the lecture, the professor challenged this argument. She claimed that this committee consisted of Peary’s friends. Hence, the claims of this committee were not completely objective. Meanwhile, it only had two parts, which were biased for the result.
Moreover, since Tom Avery made the same trek in less than 37 days, the passage claimed that Peary’s reaching as possible. Conversely, the professor opposed this argument as well. She said that what Avery experienced were too different from Peary’s condition. For example, although they used the same kind of dogsled and the number and breed of dogs, Avery spent less, such as no transforming food. Hence, it was an unfair condition to compare them. In other words, what Avery spent could not support Peary’s accounts.
Finally, the reading argued that the photographs supported the truth of Peary’s claim. By measuring the shadows of photographs, calculating the Sun’s position was possible. However, the professor disagreed with the usefulness of this method. The method measuring shadow was precise. She claimed that the photographs faded over time. Therefore, photographs produced 100 years ago were useless to compute the Sun’s position in the sky. Hence, the results of this method could not support Peary’s claim.
February 10, 2021 at 6:52 pmBoth 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.February 10, 2021 at 7:14 pmStudy Lecture 1, 2, 3 and 4 under ‘Finest Articles Explained Clearly’ on yingwenguanzhi.com.
