You are here

Home » Blogs » ziweiwang's blog

writing assignment

Submitted by ziweiwang on Thu, 09/12/2019 - 20:03

For the article on the behavior of slime mold in a labyrinth, the article only had level one headings, which divided the paper into separate topics that the author wanted to cover. The article on monophagous leaf-mining larvae, on the other hand, had a level one headings that divided the paper into a traditional introduction, method, result, and Discussion, but also further divided each section into level two headings, each covering a slightly different part of the experiment that was done.

 

Each section of the shorter article was structured in such a way that each section talked about a new idea on the topic, as well as different details that were disparate entities but come together into a single coherent idea.  However, the structure of each individual section was not to necessarily have an introduction, main point, and conclusion, but to describe the idea of what the section is about in detail, using as much paragraph as necessary to communicate the information. The role of each section is to add to the previous section so as to help explore the questions that were introduced in the first paragraph of the introduction and helps to lead to the conclusion that the author makes in the end. In this instance, where each sentence is so short that a few sections only have one paragraph, the first paragraph of each section introduced a new idea, some of which are further clarified or continued, in the case of methods, by the paragraph following the first paragraph.

The other article divides each section into a subsection which expands on the sub-topic. Same as the last paragraph, each section itself is not organized into an introductory main point and conclusion, but uses paragraph as sort of sub-sub section to easily divide the topics that are brought up in the paper. The role that each section play is to separate the paper into expected chunks of scientific literature. Each subsection further divides the section and describes a part of the experiment in detail. As with the other paper, the first paragraph is not an introduction to the section but rather just the first paragraph to the main point. The exception to this is the discussion and the introduction, where the first paragraph does introduce the main point of the paper.

For the shorter paper, there is a topic sentence, and there is a logical flow of ideas. However, the way that the idea is organized is a bit disjointed due to the simplistic, almost conversational way and serious parts where the paper is written in a more traditionally in a formal way. This way of switching between different kinds of writing styles is jarring and makes the paper hard to read. However, this way of writing is comparatively easier to understanding for people who are not familiar with the topic. 

The other paper, on the other hand, does have a topic sentence except for the paragraphs in methods and the style stays consistent throughout the paper. However, the style of overly technical writing may be hard to read for people who are not familiar with the topic. In addition, the paper seems to be very wordy compared to other articles. The ideas flow in a logical way that is commonly accepted b the scientific community. The ideas are organized so that the ideas flow from one to another. 

 

Post: