Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce. B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce. B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce."— Presentation transcript:

1 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce. B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce.

2 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce. B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce. * composer putting notes together to make music

3 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. The dessert was comprised of cream and chocolate. B. The dessert was composed of cream and chocolate.

4 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. The dessert was comprised of cream and chocolate. B. The dessert was composed of cream and chocolate.

5 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Chocolate sauce composes cream and chocolate. B. Chocolate sauce comprises cream and chocolate.

6 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Chocolate sauce composes cream and chocolate. B. Chocolate sauce comprises cream and chocolate. think “includes” (but exhaustive list) compare “composed of” (generally exhaustive)

7 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Cream and chocolate are comprised in chocolate sauce. B. Cream and chocolate are composed of chocolate sauce.

8 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Cream and chocolate are comprised in chocolate sauce. B. Cream and chocolate are composed of chocolate sauce.

9 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. I hope that my sister and I will reconcile. B. I hope that my sister and me will reconcile.

10 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. I hope that my sister and I will reconcile. B. I hope that my sister and me will reconcile.

11 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. He told Dan and me that they would meet us at noon. B. He told Dan and I that they would meet us at noon.

12 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. He told Dan and me that they would meet us at noon. B. He told Dan and I that they would meet us at noon.

13 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. I always thought it was further to the moon. B. I always thought it was farther to the moon.

14 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. I always thought it was further to the moon. B. I always thought it was farther to the moon.

15 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Between you and I, we should have it done in no time. B. Between you and me, we should have it done in no time.

16 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Between you and I, we should have it done in no time. B. Between you and me, we should have it done in no time.

17 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. He died of unknown causes. B. He died from unknown causes.

18 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. He died of unknown causes. B. He died from unknown causes.

19 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. She could have made it further in life. B. She could have made it farther in life.

20 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. She could have made it further in life. B. She could have made it farther in life.

21 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. “Its the nuts, sir. They’re complimentary.” B. “Its the nuts, sir. They’re complementary.” C. “It’s the nuts, sir. They’re complimentary.” D. “It’s the nuts, sir. They’re complementary.”

22 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. “Its the nuts, sir. They’re complimentary.” B. “Its the nuts, sir. They’re complementary.” C. “It’s the nuts, sir. They’re complimentary.” D. “It’s the nuts, sir. They’re complementary.”

23 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. The medical students heard seventeen lectures about the compliment cascade. B. The medical students heard seventeen lectures about the complement cascade.

24 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. A. The medical students heard seventeen lectures about the compliment cascade. B. The medical students heard seventeen lectures about the complement cascade.

25 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Lecture Four: Writing Basics II Paragraphs, logic, and organization

26 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 paragraphs Although the methodological approaches are similar, the questions posed in classic epidemiology and clinical epidemiology are different. In classic epidemiology, epidemiologists pose a question about the etiology of a disease in a population of people. Causal associations are important to identify because, if the causal factor identified can be manipulated or modified, prevention of disease is possible. On the other hand, in clinical epidemiology, clinicians pose a question about the prognosis of a disease in a population of patients. Prognosis can be regarded as a set of outcomes and their associated probabilities following the occurrence of some defining event or diagnosis that can be a symptom, sign, test result or disease.

27 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 What are you trying to say? Idea flow chart (outline)… I. Classic and clinical epidemiology differ Main idea of the paragraph A. Classic epidemiology is about disease etiology and preventing disease B. Clinical epidemiology is about improving prognosis Supporting ideas  specifics of how they differ i. Etiology is about this. i. Prognosis is about this. Sub-supporting ideas  definitions

28 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 sentence-level editing Although the methodological approaches are similar, the questions posed in classic epidemiology and clinical epidemiology are different. Passive voice: who posed the questions? Are different  differ wordy

29 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Despite methodologic similarities, classic epidemiology and clinical epidemiology differ in aim. I. Classic and clinical epidemiology differ Main idea of the paragraph

30 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 paragraph parallelism In classic epidemiology, epidemiologists pose a question about the etiology of a disease in a population of people. Causal associations are important to identify because, if the causal factor identified can be manipulated or modified, prevention of disease is possible. On the other hand, in clinical epidemiology, clinicians pose a question about the prognosis of a disease in a population of patients. What’s the structure of the comparison/contrast? Here: In discipline 1, group 1 poses a question about XX in a population of XX. In discipline 2, group 2 poses a question about YY in a population of YY.

31 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Classic epidemiologists pose a question about the etiology of a disease in a population of people. Clinical epidemiologists pose a question about the prognosis of a disease in a population of patients. A. Classic epidemiology is about disease etiology and preventing disease B. Clinical epidemiology is about improving prognosis Supporting ideas  specifics of how they differ

32 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 sentence-level editing Prognosis can be regarded as a set of outcomes and their associated probabilities following the occurrence of some defining event or diagnosis that can be a symptom, sign, test result or disease.  Prognosis is the probability that an event or diagnosis will result in a particular outcome. i. Prognosis is about this. Sub-supporting ideas  definitions

33 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Altogether… Despite methodologic similarities, classic epidemiology and clinical epidemiology differ in aim. Classic epidemiologists pose a question about the etiology of disease in a population of people; etiologic factors can be manipulated to prevent disease. Clinical epidemiologists pose a question about the prognosis of a disease in a population of patients; prognosis is the probability that an event or diagnosis will result in a particular outcome.

34 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 compare to outline… I. Classic and clinical epidemiology differ Main idea of the paragraph A. Classic epidemiology is about disease etiology and preventing disease B. Clinical epidemiology is about improving prognosis Supporting ideas  specifics of how they differ i. Etiology is about this. i. Prognosis is about this. Sub-supporting ideas  definitions

35 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Before you start writing, ask: “What am I trying to say?” When you finish writing, ask: “Have I said it?”

36 Scientific Writing, HRP 214, paragraph example 2 Most scents remain constant in their quality over orders of magnitude of concentration (12). Nevertheless, at high concentrations, quality tends to be negatively correlated with intensity, as was the case, for example, for the cinnamon oil used in this study. Hence, reliability of absolute scorings was achieved by calibrating the amount of perfume ingredients with initial ratings for intensity against a reference substance of known concentration. The final concentrations were in principal chosen in a way such that individual ratings showed variance among participants within the sliding scale between 0 and 10 (meaning that people could decide whether they liked a scent or not). This procedure seemed successful for most scents; however, the concentrations for bergamot (highest average ratings) and vetiver (lowest average rating) could probably been reduced even more, as both scents did not show any discriminating power at the level of common alleles (people agreed largely on the quality of these two scents) (see Table 2). Interestingly, the pooled rare alleles showed discriminating power for… Word count: 212

37 What’s the paragraph trying to convey? (outline)… I. Were the perfume concentrations in the experiment appropriate? Main idea of the paragraph A. If the concentration is too high, the smell may be too overpowering and this may affect quality ratings. B. The concentrations are appropriate if they produce sufficient variability in quality ratings. i. This is not a problem here because we standardized intensity. i. This appeared true for most scents, with two exceptions.

38 Perfume quality and intensity may be negatively correlated (if a scent is too strong, most people will reject it independent of their preference). Hence, we chose the final concentration of each perfume ingredient so that it had similar intensity to a reference scent (1- butanol). The resulting concentrations appeared appropriate for most scents, as participants’ preferences varied along the sliding scale between 0 and 10. However, people largely agreed on the quality of bergamot (highest average ratings) and vetiver (lowest average rating), so lower concentrations may have been needed for these scents. Word count: 91 Scientific Writing, HRP 214, paragraph example 2

39 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Paragraph organization tips: 1. Avoid a succession of loose sentences (monotonous). 2. Paragraph flow is helped by: parallel sentence structures logical flow of ideas if necessary, transition words 3. Your reader remembers the first sentence and the last sentence best. Make the last sentence memorable. Emphasis at the end!

40 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Paragraph organization tips: 1. Avoid a succession of loose sentences (monotonous). --Outlining and organizing can help arrange ideas. --But, when stringing together a series of ideas, don’t forget to vary sentence structure for readability.

41 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Example from Strunk and White: The third concert of the subscription series was given last evening, and a large audience was in attendance. Mr. Edward Appleton was the soloist, and the Boston Symphony Orchestra furnished the instrumental music. The former showed himself to be an artist of the first rank, while the latter proved itself fully deserving of its high reputation. The interest aroused by the series has been very gratifying to the Committee, and it is planned to give a similar series annually hereafter. The fourth concert will be given on Tuesday, May 10, when an equally attractive program will be presented.

42 Scientific Writing, HRP Paragraph flow is helped by: parallel sentence structures logical flow of ideas if necessary, transition words

43 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 logical flow of ideas: Sequential in time General  specific Logical arguments (if a then b; a; therefore b)

44 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 example Usually, when a defendant absconds, a bondsman hires a bounty hunter to find and arrest him within the grace period (which, in California, is six months). If that fails, the bondman tries to seize any collateral that the defendant put down to secure the bond, or sues the defendant’s “indemnitors,” who signed the bail application as guarantors. But Zabala hadn’t put down any collateral, and so far Green—one of the few bondsmen who always do their own bounty hunting— had found neither him nor his indemnitors. The grace period was nearly up. Soon, Green would have to pay the court thirty-one thousand dollars.

45 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 organized by: time sequence and general  specific 1. First, a bondsman hires a bounty hunter to find and arrest the defendant within the grace period. 2. Then, if that fails, the bondman seizes collateral or sues indemnitors. 3. Now, in this specific case, the defendant (Zabala) is AWOL and has no collateral or available indemnitors 4. Conclusion: the bondswoman (Green) is out of options. Notice how the author didn’t need to write “first,” “then,” “in this specific case,” or “conclusion”  the organization of sentences and context gives readers these clues without spelling them out…

46 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 examine the logical structure A bondsman has these and only these options: 1. Hire a bounty hunter to find and arrest the guy within a grace period. 2. If (1) fails, seize collateral or sue indemnitor. 3. Pay the money herself. In this case, 1. Grace period nearly done without arrest. 2. No collaterol, no indemnitors.  Green (the bondswoman) will be responsible for the $31,000.

47 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 transitions used Usually, when a defendant absconds, a bondsman hires a bounty hunter to find and arrest him within the grace period (which, in California, is six months). If that fails, the bondman tries to seize any collateral that the defendant put down to secure the bond, or sues the defendant’s “indemnitors,” who signed the bail application as guarantors. But Zabala hadn’t put down any collateral, and so far Green—one of the few bondsmen who always do their own bounty hunting— had found neither him nor his indemnitors. The grace period was nearly up. Soon, Green would have to pay the court thirty-one thousand dollars.

48 Scientific Writing, HRP Your reader remembers the first sentence and the last sentence best. Make the last sentence memorable.

49 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 But Zabala hadn’t put down any collateral, and so far Green—one of the few bondsmen who always do their own bounty hunting—had found neither him nor his indemnitors. The grace period was nearly up. Soon, Green would have to pay the court thirty-one thousand dollars. Long, short, long.

50 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 But Zabala hadn’t put down any collateral, and so far Green—one of the few bondsmen who always do their own bounty hunting—had found neither him nor his indemnitors. The grace period was nearly up. Soon, Green would have to pay the court thirty-one thousand dollars. Long, short, long. Nice sentence variety and build-up to the conclusion.

51 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Finally, organizing the whole story…

52 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Compositional organization: 1. Like ideas should be grouped. 2. Like paragraphs should be grouped. 3. Don’t “Bait-and-Switch” your reader too many times. When discussing a controversy, follow: arguments (all) counter-arguments (all) rebuttals (all)

53 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Organizing your thoughts… Do you have a system? If you don’t, get one. Spend more time organizing and less time writing. It’s just plain less painful! The 10:1 feature-story ratio: 10 parts organization/research: 1 part writing.

54 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Develop a road-map…. Think in paragraphs and sections…

55 Interviews… Swap from last time: “What brought you to Stanford—spiritually, literally, or otherwise?” Then each take 10 minutes to write up a 1-2 paragraph mini profile (SHORT, PUNCHY, CLEVER, HUMOROUS) of the other person. Use at least one dash or colon and at least one sentence with parallel construction.

56 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 And finally… This week’s Top 5 countdown:

57 Scientific Writing, HRP Do not use “they” or “their” when the antecedent is singular (but can vary gender references) Every one of us knows they are fallible. Every one of us knows she is fallible. Each student pulled out their notebook. Each student pulled out his notebook.

58 Scientific Writing, HRP Prevalence v. Incidence Incidence is a RATE  how many new cases develop per unit of population per unit of time? Prevalence is a PROPORTION  how widespread is a given disease?

59 Scientific Writing, HRP principle v. principal Principle is a fundamental truth or law Principal is a leader The school’s principal declared it a holiday. (mnemonic: your “pal”) Her principles were impeccable.

60 Scientific Writing, HRP rational v. rationale Rational is an adjective, meaning sane or logical. Rationale is a noun, meaning justification. She was a rational human being. Their rationale for the move was that it would save a great deal of money.

61 Scientific Writing, HRP To hyphenate or not to hyphenate, that is the question…units… Hyphenate multiple adjectives that modify a noun. The ball was 21 feet in diameter. (noun) The ball had a 21-foot diameter. (adjective) The machine carried a 44-pound scientific payload. The machine carried 44 pounds in science equipment.

62 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Homework Read chapters of Sin and Syntax (pp ) Exercise: paragraph rewrites

63 Scientific Writing, HRP 214 Preview to next time… For next time… words  sentences  paragraphs  compositions  revision Bringing it all together and revising.


Download ppt "Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Cream and chocolate comprise chocolate sauce. B. Cream and chocolate compose chocolate sauce."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google