The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Text correction Options
Bryrorii
Posted: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 10:40:51 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/2/2017
Posts: 3
Neurons: 20
Location: Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Hello, I'm studying for TOEFL and I wrote a text today, but don't think I'll be able to really correct my own text.
Would you kindly help me?
The text is below.
It's about changing the current paper voting system in the USA.
If you are interested in reading the base text and the lecture, the link is below:
https://www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/SampleQuestions.pdf
Writing Section, question 1.

Thank you very much!


Summarize the points made in the lecture, being sure to explain how they oppose specific points made in the reading passage. (150-220 w)

The text is defending the opinion that a new, more technological voting system is necessary in the United States. However, the professor thinks that the implementation of technology in the voting process wouldn't bring improvements.
It's stated in the passage that people can accidentally vote wrong in the traditional system, because the letters in the ballots are very small and the names of the candidates are close to one another. This way, people with poor eyesight, for example, could benefit from easy touch interfaces that could magnify the letters. The lecturer defends that some people would vote wrong anyway in computerized voting systems, because there are some who are not used with computers. He even states that some people wouldn't even vote out of fear of this technology.
The second fact is that people who count the votes can make errors, and this would be inevitable because they deal with thousands of ballots. However, the professor upholds that votes can also be miscounted by computers and even worse, they can be deleted. This way a recount wouldn't be only expensive and long, as it is in the traditional method, but also impossible.
To finally support its arguments, the text exemplifies that people and governments already trust very complex systems, such as bank and communication systems. In the professor's opinion, these systems were not perfect when they were introduced neither. Plus, they are used very heavily and on a daily basis. This helps the fast improvement of those systems, and this wouldn't happen in the voting system. National votings only occur every two years and local votings normally happen two times a year. Therefore, the system would take longer to be improved.
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Thursday, August 03, 2017 12:36:53 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 26,452
Neurons: 141,825
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hello Bryanne.
Welcome to the forum.

If you have a teacher/tutor it would be far better if you had them correct this (you will not learn from your tutors corrections of my mistakes!)

Here is my opinion (as a note, I speak British English with a little influence of a northern English dialect). You may receive other answers - differences will mainly be differences in dialect (northern English, southern English, American, Australian, Indian, African are all slightly different in choices of words).
Only the words marked in full red are the ones I consider 'incorrect'.
Dark red and indigo are simply used to mark specific phrases.

The text is defending the opinion that a new, more technological voting system is necessary in the United States. However, the professor thinks that the implementation of technology in the voting process wouldn't bring improvements. This seems fine to me.

It's stated in the passage that people can accidentally vote wrong in the traditional system, because the letters in the ballots are very small and the names of the candidates are close to one another. This way, people with poor eyesight, for example, could benefit from easy touch interfaces that could magnify the letters. The lecturer defends that some people would vote wrong anyway in computerized voting systems, because there are some who are not used with computers. He even states that some people wouldn't even vote out of fear of this technology. Firstly, in such a piece, I would not use "it's" and "wouldn't". I definitely would speak like that, but in an exercise I would write the full words ('it is' and 'would not').
Secondly, the use of 'wrong' as an adverb ("vote wrong" rather than "vote wrongly") is colloquial and a little questionable. It is very common and accepted in most dictionaries, but I would avoid it in a test. The sentence can be re-worded to avoid it.
Personally, I would say ". . . even vote through fear of this technology" - mainly to avoid the use of two "of"s close together - but that is my own choice of words.


The second fact is that people who count the votes can make errors, and this would be inevitable because they deal with thousands of ballots. However, the professor upholds that votes can also be miscounted by computers and even worse, they can be deleted. This way a recount wouldn't be only expensive and long, as it is in the traditional method, but also impossible. The main thing in this is the use of the word 'fact'. I'm not sure whether it is the same in American English or the "Standard IELTS English" but to me a fact is true - so you are saying that the passage is true and the lecturer is wrong. I don't think that is what you intend. I would use a neutral word like 'premise'.
The wording of the last sentence sounds awkward to me. In my experience, the normal phrasing is "[verb] + not only . . . but also . . ." rather than "[negative verb] only . . . but also . . .". "This way a recount would be, not only expensive and long (as it is in the traditional method), but impossible."


To finally support its arguments, the text exemplifies that people and governments already trust very complex systems, such as bank and communication systems. - Good

In the professor's opinion, these systems were not perfect when they were introduced neither. Plus, they are used very heavily and on a daily basis. This helps the fast improvement of those systems, and this wouldn't happen in the voting system. National votings only occur every two years and local votings normally happen two times a year. Therefore, the system would take longer to be improved.

You need to review the use of 'either/neither' (I'm sure you have a better explanation than I could write).
Here, it sounds like a 'double negative'.
The second sentence sounds odd to me - I think that it is because "this" in the second clause seems to refer to "improvement", but "happen" seems to refer to the verb "help". It's just a bit awkwardly-stated. I would rephrase the second clause ". . . and this would not be true in the voting system."
"Two times" is normally "twice".

Generally, your description is clear and easily-understood. Others may have different opinions . . .
Anxious

Wyrd bið ful aræd - bull!
Bryrorii
Posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:46:08 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/2/2017
Posts: 3
Neurons: 20
Location: Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
I thank you very much!
Awesome correction! It helped me a lot!
I will write down the mistakes and revise the subjects.
Thank you again :D
Bryrorii
Posted: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 10:49:00 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/2/2017
Posts: 3
Neurons: 20
Location: Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Oh, and the opinion is not mine hehe
I had only to show the lecturer's opinion in contrast to the reading passage.
I prefer the electronic voting system =)
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.