📝 A common mistake in writing 📝

Here is a piece of a student's writing. Try to notice what is off.

📝 "Being genuinely interested in people around you is actually more important in communication than being interested in oneself. If a person is curious, he or she is eager to listen to another person and support them."

The problem is the inconsistency in subjects / objects / agents. I'll put them in bold for you to notice:

📝 "Being genuinely interested in people around you is actually more important in communication than being interested in oneself. If a person is curious, he or she is eager to listen to another person and support them."

How can we change that?

1️⃣ The simplest solution is to use "you" everywhere:

"Being genuinely interested in people around you is actually more important in communication than being interested in yourself. If you are curious, you are eager to listen to another person and support them."

Now the piece is beautifully consistent, but what if we can't use "you" because of the register? It is on the informal side after all.

2️⃣ The solution many people suggest immediately is using "one" throughout:

"Being genuinely interested in people around one is actually more important in communication than being interested in oneself. If one is curious, one is eager to listen to another person and support them."

But now the piece is awkward and too formal. Is there a better solution?

3️⃣ The best solution is to get rid of some if the pronouns at all - not with the help of synonyms though. Look:

"Being genuinely interested in those around is actually more important in communication than being self-centered and self-absorbed. A curious person is eager to listen to others and support them."

The third solution is by far the most elegant. Mind your consistency and see if you really need all those "you/one/people/person."

Modern motivators be like....

The New York Times - 08 December, 2022

A glimpse of my "Writing with New Scientist" class: a case of improved cohesion 👩‍🎓

Sometimes cohesion is about simply changing the order of your clauses. Let's take a look at one such case.

🗒 Topic: Different ages come with different strengths and weaknesses. Some people therefore believe certain jobs and activities should be restricted to certain ages. Others, however, insist that all jobs and all activities should be open to everyone regardless of their age. Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.

🗒 The beginning of the first body paragraph written by a student:
"Some jobs and activities require specific skills or physical strength, which people often lack at a particular age, and consequently restrictions seem to be essential. It is supposed that elderly specialists, for example those over over 70 years old, can be frail or absent-minded to work in such demanding jobs as police officers or surgeons."

Which clause would you put in a different place?

🗒 My re-write:
"Restrictions might be essential in some jobs and activities that require specific skills or physical strength, which people often lack at a particular age. For example, specialists who are over 70 years old can be too frail or absent-minded to work in such demanding jobs as police officers or surgeons."

Why is my version more cohesive?
1) Placing "restrictions" at the beginning makes the introduction smoother as this is something we already know from the topic;
2) In my version, "particular age" and "specialists who are over 70" are situated closer to each other, which also enhances cohesion.

What do you think?❓

The Guardian USA - 12 December 2022

A glimpse of my "Writing with New Scientist" class: sentence clinic 📝

Take a look at this sentence written by a student. It's technically correct, but in what way is it flawed?

🗒 "The second strategy is introducing stringent regulations and even bans on junk food commercials in mass media and on billboards to cut the time people are exposed to mouth-watering images of fast food and snacks, mostly unrealistic and crafted specifically to lure people into buying the products."

Well, students said it's lengthy. But why is it lengthy? Because it has four "and"s!

🗒 "The second strategy is introducing stringent regulations and even bans on junk food commercials in mass media and on billboards to cut the time people are exposed to mouth-watering images of fast food and snacks, mostly unrealistic and crafted specifically to lure people into buying the products."

What is wrong with the "and"s though? Well, they add some parts that are unnecessary, complicating the sentence without good reason.

My re-write:
🗒 "The second strategy is introducing stringent regulations or even bans on junk food advertising to cut the time people are exposed to mouth-watering images of such food, mostly unrealistic and crafted specifically to lure people into buying the products."

One "and" was replaced with "or" for emphasis. Two were cut out entirely as they didn't add meaning. Only one remained. Isn't the sentence more beautiful now? 💜

A glimpse of my "Writing with New Scientist" class: a superb example 💙

"This argument is developed superbly," said Irina never rarely.

Today, rather than sharing a bad piece of writing, I want to share a superb example. The idea in the piece below is developed so well that I didn't have a single question or comment about it (which happens very rarely).

🗒 Question: Why do people keep eating food that is unhealthy?

🗒 Student's paragraph - as is, without a single edit on my part:

"There are two major reasons for this. The first is that many products these days are created in such a way that they are highly addictive. Manufacturers, for whom it is lucrative to stimulate an immoderate consumption of their products, purposefully use sugar and taste-enhancing food additives to trigger the reward system in the human brain and get it hooked on instant gratification. As a result, finding it onerous to fight the cravings for sugar- and additives-rich food people prioritise the immediate pleasure over the long term benefits of a healthy diet as it brings a brief bout of happiness and decreases stress."

Well, I said I didn't have a single comment about the idea development, but I do have a comment on cohesion. Did you spot the unclear referencing? It's "it" in the last sentence - it seems to refer to "a healthy diet." How would you fix it?❓

Anyways, cohesion aside, this is a superb piece. 💜

Happy Sunday English learners 🤓

Wеdnеsdау (2022)

Genre: Comedy, Crime, Drama
Stars: Jenna Ortega, Gwendoline Christie, Riki Lindhome

Follows Wednesday Addams' years as a student, when she attempts to master her emerging psychic ability, thwart and solve the mystery that embroiled her parents.

IMDB 8.5

Episode 1

Episode 2