TO: Russel Gerbrandt, English 301
FROM: Alicia DeGelder, English 301
DATE: 21 January 2019
SUBJECT: Review of your definition
I have reviewed your first draft of Assignment 1:3: Definitions. Not being familiar with your term “singularity”, I felt that I was an appropriate reader of your work. I have listed below my thoughts:
Parenthetical definition: A clear definition is provided and the sturcture of a parenthetical definition is correctly followed.
Sentence definition: The definition is well laid out into term, class, and distinguishing features. This definition was easy to understand and gives a clear explanation of the chosen term.
Etymology: There is a clear distinction between the specific and general terms and this is adequately explained by providing the difference, why there is a difference and how the broad term encompasses the specific term. Very well done.
Expanded definition: Five good expansion techniques are incorporated – etymology, history, operating principles, negation, and a visual aspect.
Visual: The figure was quite clear in portraying Moore’s Law. A good addition to the document.
History: The first quotation may not be necessary for the definition as it detracted from the coherence of the paragraph. I suggest reducing the length or simply making note of the first use of the term. The second sentence was concise and provided adequate history and introduction.
Operating principle: The second paragraph may be too technical for an inexperienced audience. One sentence that was quite difficult to interpret is: Para 2, sentence 4 [..”Kurzweil sees Moore’s Law as the fifth paradigm..”]. The terms ‘fifth paradigm’, and ‘computing in three dimensions’ may be unclear to a novice. The last sentence summarizes the paragraph nicely, but could be written more succinctly.
Negation: This section was well written and easy to follow.
Cohesiveness: The closing section was quite clear and helped to clarify some confusion from earlier paragraphs. I suggest tying the last two sections together more coherently. For example, the last section refersto Kurzweil’s law as a “predictor of the singularity” which is what helped to bring the definition together. I suggest introducing this term in the second section under operating principles so readers know what you will be explaining.
Overall, I thought your definition was well done, except for a few overly technical terms and a loss of cohesiveness with the operating principles. I found your term very interesting and enjoyed reading your explanation. I hope you find my feedback helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Leave a Reply