Thomson's Scientific Method
Review of Essay 4 (Daksh Sharma #11638160)
TS (7/10): The first two sentences are concise and clear; however, the author doesn't explicitly explain what he/she means by the properties of an object or organism. The author introduces two concrete examples, but he/she fails to clarify the term "Scientific Method".
DS (9/10): The author discusses the importance of testability of data and evidence in a scientific experiment. This developmental statement acts as an efficient transition between the introduction and the body paragraphs. The author could have used the word true instead of accurate.
Body Paragraph (8/20): The author starts off strong by briefly explaining Thomson's model of the atom; however, he/she abruptly introduces Thomson's …show more content…
cathode ray experiment, which led to the discovery of the electron, without explaining its significance or link with Thomson's model of the atom. He/she then jumps to Rutherford's alpha particle experiment. Even though the author tries to convey to the readers the methodology followed by Rutherford during the experiment, he/she doesn't provide any vital data. The word theorizing is used instead of hypothesizing, which might confuse the readers. At the end of the first paragraph of the body, the author makes a feeble attempt to connect the entire paragraph to the theme of the essay by just talking about how Rutherford's experimental observations were reproducible.
The author provides no transitions into the second paragraph of the body. The level of writing deteriorates considerably in this paragraph. The first sentence is confusing and poorly framed. The mentioned procedure of the experiment is barely coherent. No scientific data is provided. The author yet again confuses a theory with a hypothesis. The explanation provided by the author for the photoelectric effect is plain wrong, and he/she uses frequency and intensity as interchangeable terms: while in reality, these terms refer to two very distinct properties of radiation. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the concept of threshold frequency. Even though the body paragraphs explain the aims of the experiments correctly, they lack scientific evidence, vital data, and coherent explanations about the procedure of these experiments.
The quality of Example (10/30): The two examples are not explained in detail.
No data is provided. Technical terms like alpha particles, quanta, and photoelectric effect are used without proper explanation. Instead of focusing on the examples mentioned in the introduction, the author constantly introduces new examples which aren't relevant to the theme of the essay, which is to discuss whether a statement is scientific or not. The flow of the two body paragraphs is also a bit shaky as the author tried to fit in a lot of extraneous information into them.
Conclusion (4/10): The author's claim that a statement is scientific only if it can be analyzed through the scientific method is weak and ambiguous. There is no contextual definition provided for the terms "properties" and "opinion". How does the validation of a statement through the scientific method make it scientific? What is the scientific method? The author leaves a multitude of questions unanswered.
Flow/Writing (8/20): The sentence structures are full of errors, and the word usage is obscure. There is extensive use of jargon which makes the essay difficult to comprehend. The grammar is weak, and some compound sentences require multiple reads to understand. Run-on sentences are common, and punctuation is almost non-existent. Overall, this essay fails to qualify as a university level essay, and there is a lot of scope for improvement.
Total:
46/100
TS (7/10): The first two sentences are concise and clear; however, the author doesn't explicitly explain what he/she means by the properties of an object or organism. The author introduces two concrete examples, but he/she fails to clarify the term "Scientific Method".
DS (9/10): The author discusses the importance of testability of data and evidence in a scientific experiment. This developmental statement acts as an efficient transition between the introduction and the body paragraphs. The author could have used the word true instead of accurate.
Body Paragraph (8/20): The author starts off strong by briefly explaining Thomson's model of the atom; however, he/she abruptly introduces Thomson's …show more content…
cathode ray experiment, which led to the discovery of the electron, without explaining its significance or link with Thomson's model of the atom. He/she then jumps to Rutherford's alpha particle experiment. Even though the author tries to convey to the readers the methodology followed by Rutherford during the experiment, he/she doesn't provide any vital data. The word theorizing is used instead of hypothesizing, which might confuse the readers. At the end of the first paragraph of the body, the author makes a feeble attempt to connect the entire paragraph to the theme of the essay by just talking about how Rutherford's experimental observations were reproducible.
The author provides no transitions into the second paragraph of the body. The level of writing deteriorates considerably in this paragraph. The first sentence is confusing and poorly framed. The mentioned procedure of the experiment is barely coherent. No scientific data is provided. The author yet again confuses a theory with a hypothesis. The explanation provided by the author for the photoelectric effect is plain wrong, and he/she uses frequency and intensity as interchangeable terms: while in reality, these terms refer to two very distinct properties of radiation. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the concept of threshold frequency. Even though the body paragraphs explain the aims of the experiments correctly, they lack scientific evidence, vital data, and coherent explanations about the procedure of these experiments.
The quality of Example (10/30): The two examples are not explained in detail.
No data is provided. Technical terms like alpha particles, quanta, and photoelectric effect are used without proper explanation. Instead of focusing on the examples mentioned in the introduction, the author constantly introduces new examples which aren't relevant to the theme of the essay, which is to discuss whether a statement is scientific or not. The flow of the two body paragraphs is also a bit shaky as the author tried to fit in a lot of extraneous information into them.
Conclusion (4/10): The author's claim that a statement is scientific only if it can be analyzed through the scientific method is weak and ambiguous. There is no contextual definition provided for the terms "properties" and "opinion". How does the validation of a statement through the scientific method make it scientific? What is the scientific method? The author leaves a multitude of questions unanswered.
Flow/Writing (8/20): The sentence structures are full of errors, and the word usage is obscure. There is extensive use of jargon which makes the essay difficult to comprehend. The grammar is weak, and some compound sentences require multiple reads to understand. Run-on sentences are common, and punctuation is almost non-existent. Overall, this essay fails to qualify as a university level essay, and there is a lot of scope for improvement.
Total:
46/100