\"Writing.Com
*Magnify*
SPONSORED LINKS
BY ONLINE AUTHORS
Printed from https://writing.com/main/profile/reviews/stinger000
Review Requests: OFF
49 Public Reviews Given
0 Total Reviews Given
Public Reviews
1
1
Review of Life Is A Fallacy  Open in new Window.
Review by Stinger Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (3.0)
Hi imakunee, thanks for sharing your work;

I'm a philosopher myself so naturally your work was of interest to me. Here are my thoughts:

- Personally, I don't like it when a writer prefaces their work with an explanation. I'm willing to forgive this if it offers some practical information - eg: 'this is chapter six, see my portfolio for 1-5' - but in your case, I don't see why it's necessary for a reader to know what you've told them before reading your piece. I will extend to you the Principle of Charity in this instance however, and take it to be an ironic attempt to further highlight the fallacy of the Ad Populum argument.

- My overall impression of the piece is that it uses unnecessarily convoluted language. This isn't desirable in a philosophical work, nor indeed in any writing. You should always be striving to express yourself clearly and succinctly. I'm well acquainted with all the philosophical arguments you raise and even I had difficulty making out some of your points as they were so laboriously and torturously worded. On the other hand, the premise of the story is excellent. The idea of winning someone over so decisively with reasoned argument is every philosopher's dream come true. Don't obscure your good idea behind inaccessible language.

- What makes the excessively laboured language worse is that in parts there is a sharp contrast between the use of this style and a very informal style of writing. '...in pink ribbons, her slippers, SEEING HOW IT WAS summer...', 'She MADE SURE TO DO all her ', Lacey recognized THIS GUY, 'so sad, LIKE, all the time? You never talk, LIKE, at all',

- THE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS:

1. Hasty generalisation: Ensure you understand where induction can be valid. It will never be logically airtight in the way deduction is, but in this case, Lacey's argument could be taken to read: The vast majority of people I've polled have stated that they love life; it is therefore logical for me to assume that you will also share this preference.' Reasoning in this way isn't fallacious in and of itself. Deduction can 'prove' very little that is of use and almost everything we take to be a fact - the sun will rise tomorrow, everyone will eventually die etc - can all be easily disproved by a single exception. The very fact that Lacey couches her objection in terms of a question; '...so doesn’t everyone love life?' suggests she's more aware of the limitations of induction and therefore has a better understanding of its use than Vlad does. Saying that most people believe something doesn't make it logically impossible for the conclusion they've reached to be false. Saying that on the basis of most people believing something, it's reasonable to assume the next person you ask will also believe it's true is perfectly valid reasoning.

2.Antecedal Inaccuracy/False Dichotomy/Dicto Simpliciter - Lacey does not preceed her false dichotomy with any premise therefore there is no antecedent to this argument; she goes on to say 'hating life is really bad'. This may appear to be a case of dicto simpliciter on the surface but in order to refute her argument, Vlad really needs to give a good counter-example instead of dismissing her out of hand. 'Refraining from stabbing oneself in the chest is good' - this may appear to be a case where dicto simpliciter would apply in that no allowance for exception is made, but it would be hard to think of an example where it would hold false. Dicto simpliciter is more properly used to refute generalised arguments that are being inappropriately used. Freedom of speech is an example of this; the fallacy of DS would be a valid argument against the general principle of FoS if you tried to argue that this freedom allowed you to cry 'fire' and create a dangerous panic when you were aware there was no such fire. A philosopher must be able to distinguish between the known limits of inductive reasoning and a case where the appeal to DS is valid.

3. Return to Ad Populum: In Lacey's favour she has now widened the group polled beyond her friends to 'almost all the kids'. She is wrong in saying this means Vlad MUST like life too but at the same time, she has strengthened her own case for believing it is more likely that he will take this view. "99% of people believe product A is the best." This statement can't be used to decisively PROVE product A is the best, but assuming the polling is done properly, it is then logically sound to believe that it's likely the next person you ask will also believe product A to be the best.

4. The Red Herring: A red herring is not simply an invalid or misguided argument, rather it pertains to a DELIBERATE attempt to subvert an argument. If I wanted to argue with you over the nature of water, it would make no sense for me to start invoking sitiuations where water was dry in order to make my case. Lacey doesn't seem to be deliberately digressing from the subject at hand, rather giving examples of how the case in point applies to her.

5. The Slippery Slope: Similarly to the false dichotomy you raised earlier, this is a good and valid example of such a fallacy.

6. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: This argument isn't valid in this instance. Michael only states he's observed one incident follows another. He makes no statements regarding one being the cause of another which is what it required to qualify for the post hoc fallacy.
2
2
Review by Stinger Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | (4.0)
Hey LIsa, thanks for sharing your work.

Congratulations on having the courage to put your first piece up for review. I know this can be such a daunting prospect fof a writer and I hope you'll receive helpful critiques that will assist you in improving this piece and your writing in general.

Here are my thoughts:

- The layout is strange - why are there such enormous gaps between paragraphs? A single line break is all that's needed and if you have that, the indent isn't really necessary.

- I think you provide a bit too much detail early on. The beginning in particular with its lengthy description of the cigarette almost reads like you're including a poem about the cigarette or that your piece is being sponsored by Pall Mall. Try to ensure you're not including too much unnecessary detail in describing things, especially in the early stages when a reader is eager to get to know the characters and get the story started.

- 'After the first hour she was mildly annoyed, hour two brought anger and the hour before this one brought forth resolution' I'm not sure this is saying exactly what you want it to be. It reads like hour one, hour two, the hour before (before seeming to pertain to hour two and hence a return to hour one). Make sure you choose correctly between this and that.

- realized what she had forgotten, herself. Not forgotten herself like being rude, but in the sense of self neglect - Ensure your punctuation is correctly assisting your words in expressing what you want to say. There is ambiguity at the end of the sentence that finishes with 'herself' as to whether she's forgotten her own interests or whether she realises on her own, something she has forgotten. The fact you feel the need to clarify this further in the next sentence should strongly suggest to you as a writer that you need to go back and rephrase that previous sentence. You shouldn't be following up sentences with 'footnotes' clearing up ambiguities - go back and make the original sentiment say what you want it to.

- walked into see. Grim determination etched upon his wives weary face. = Why have you started a new sentence with 'grim' when it seems to be following on from the last sentiment? Neither sentence makes proper sense because of this.

- She had turned up so much different than - watch your word choice. Turned UP suggests arrival, turned OUT exposition. ...Capone recreating in our basement...- again here, I don't think 'recreating' is the right word as it pertains to trying to imitate or repeat something rather than to recreation which is what I think you meant.

- I think your dialogue would sound more natural if you used contractions. Saying 'I have' instead of 'I've' for example, gives the speech an artificially formal sound which isn't in keeping with a personal conversation.

I think you are a good writer who expresses herself clearly and I can tell you've given thought to the characters which is excellent as this is what makes a novel/story interesting and engaging for a reader. All your piece really needs is a little more attention to detail and for you as the writer to be a bit tougher on yourself during editing and question why you've included the details you have. If you've only just started writing then I would definitely say stick with it as you show a lot of promise.

All the best.

-
3
3
Review by Stinger Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | (2.5)
Hey Monlike, thanks for sharing your work

My overall impression of it is that it expresses sn admirable sentiment and that you've chosen some apt illustrations which encourage the reader to think about what you've written. The spelling and punctuation are nothing short of atrocious however and detract massively from the work. Start by using your word processor's spell check and grammar check and a huge number of errors will immediately be highlighted to you. I think you have potential as a writer but if you don't improve on the presentation of your words, you'll find it difficult to find readers. ALWAYS review your own work closely before asking others to do the same.

Don't get discouraged - some concerted effort would be all it took to improve this work a whole lot.

All the best.
4
4
Review by Stinger Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | (3.5)
Hey Beth, thanks for sharing your work

This is obviously a subject you are passionate about yourself and I can tell from your writing your faith is strong. Don't let this blind you to the fact that others may not be so thoroughly persuaded or may even be downright sceptical. I think the strength of the work comes in the sections where you relate things to your own experience, the weaknesses are when the tenor becomes rather 'preachy'. Presumably you're hoping to convince people who are not yet as faithful as you to consider becoming so. I'm not sure telling people what they "must" do or that this is "the only true way" - essentially saying there's no room for any point of view bar your own = do will endear you or your message to them. Try to be a little more subtle in your delivery whilst still maintaining your passion.

The work chops and changes between directly addressing the reader and a third person perspective, sometimes in the same sentence - paragraph five. This effect detracts from the work with its inconsistency.

Don't use needless fillers like 'to be frank with you'. Your will form an opinion on your frankness themselves and will likely assume you're being honest about your feelings - why would you be writing such a thing otherwise?

Some of your commas are not needed/properly used.

'and you need to know that first and foremost' - totally redundant. The fact that this is the first and foremost thing you've told us already makes this clear. If you must include it, say that first.

Speaking of the love and respect coinciding is totally at odds with the message. Coincidence deals with unrelated incident occurring simultaneously. It is not a coincidence that the love/respect and human uniqueness occur together. One is an entailment of the other. That is the polar opposite of what coincidence means.

"You need not seek approval..." Essentially this says 'anyone who doesn't agree with what I just said doesn't have a valid opinion so don't care what they think'. This comes across as VERY arrogant. If everyone truly is entitled to respect due to your belief they are created by God, don't be so dismissive of others. I agree wholeheartedly that people shouldn't mindlessly seek approval from others without giving some consideration to why they want it, but I don't think this sentiment is quite coming across in the way you intended.

Paragraph seven is the best in my opinion due to your presenting evidence for your beliefs and showing how they've benefitted you personally, thus inviting your reader to similarly benefit. It's better to present a strong case and have your reader agree with you on their own than just to issue orders with regards to their beliefs, however heartfelt they are for you.

I believe you're a good writer with the best of intentions in writing this. I just think it would benefit from you trying to review it yourself a little more objectively. Pretend it's talking about a different faith and ask yourself what your opinion would be then. If you want to make your work accessible to a wider audience, you need to lead them along to your conclusions a little more gently in my opinion.

All the very best to you
5
5
Review of Enemeht  Open in new Window.
Review by Stinger Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | N/A (Review only item.)
Hey Lightning, thanks for sharing your work

- Straight away your writing makes an excellent impression. It's very clear, concise and to-the-point. I think it would benefit from a thorough check of its punctuation, especially the use of commas. Also look around your dialogue for inconsistencies - sometimes the punctuation should be more correctly outside the quote marks. There are also places where a comma is needed instead of a full-stop etc.

- I am not sure if 'The Architecht' is such a great name for the character. To me that immediately brought to mind the Matrix film trilogy. Don't make your character have to 'compete' with another already established one.

- In certain places you use two adjectives. You say the land is beautiful and peaceful. They're both rather bland adjectives. Given that you've avoided using loads of uneccessary modifiers and descriptions, you can definitely afford to be a bit more adventurous when you do use one. Try and think of more 'exciting' words to use to treat your readers. Think of exactly what the nature of the beauty is. If the land is particularly bright for example, use a word like 'resplendent' which has the inbuilt connotation of beauty but adds more detail without adding to the word count.

-I feel like the work gets slightly weaker after the prologue section - "You know me....sophomores". This entire section is a little confusing. It presents a lot of information in a rather disorganised manner and is less well written than what comes before. I appreciate your desire to be conversational but don't use this as an excuse to get too 'chatty' and fail to maintain proper order within your work.

- Some things seem rather contradictory. How can a person be both 'average' and have a 'special' power. I'm the hated one in my family and then two sentences later you totally contradict that. Once again, don't let chattiness become confusion.

- Some of the details you include seem quite random, like the classes she took. If that's to make her seem smart, don't hammer that point home by also telling me directly that she's smart.

-Suffice to say+it's a long story are not needed there. Don't use up your word count with meaningless extras like this.

-Check your work carefully for small errors in grammar and punctuation. "Things look bad for The Architect, but he wasn't worried." The tense changes halfway through that sentence from present to past. "it's along story", no it's not, its a long story. "The Architect broke free of The King's shadow grapple" - grapple is a verb and is incorrectly used here. There are many more similar errors along the way and these all add up in an observant reader's mind. Don't distract them from the work itself by making them notice mistakes.

Keep working on it - you definitely have writing talent, it could just use a little more attention to detail and critical reviewing.

All the best to you
6
6
Review by Stinger Author IconMail Icon
Rated: 13+ | (3.0)
Hey Christian, thanks for sharing your work.

Right from the outset I'll admit I am far more liberal in my views but have endeavoured to remain as objective as possible. I hope that you can distinguish between my reviewing of the writing itself and its content.

- The title is EXTREMELY inflammatory. Ask yourself who it is you're writing this type of work for. With a title like that you're essentially limiting your readership to those who agree with you (and even those who do in principle may find this a little extreme), and those who have already decided they aren't going to agree with you no matter what you say, simply on the basis of that title. It might be better to tone it down a little to encourage more people to consider what you have to say in an open-minded fashion. It's also worth bearing in mind that to the gay community and those who support them, this will be extremely offensive. In my personal opinion, its a little at odds with the spirit of Christianity to be lambasting people in this manner.

- Encourage and demonstrate respect for your own religion by properly capitalising words like 'Christian' and 'Bible' to show they're not just run-of-the mill nouns.

- The first argument that you make is that there is a Biblical sanction on such behaviour. Don't undercut your own argument by conceding disagreement unless you intend to counter that in some way. Asserting your own agreement does not do this adequately.

-"How could anyone that claims to believe Jesus died and rose again for our sins argue this? Anyone who claims to know my God and my Jesus yet still accepts gay marriage is a hypocrite." The second sentence there labours the point. Your readers will be able to draw the conclusion that the your presentation of God/Jesus and homosexual activites are mutually exclusive. You have backed this up with the Bible quotations. It adds nothing to the work to tack on this sentence and once again, consider the inflammatory nature of the word 'hypocrite'.

- Coming to your first non-biblical argument: Look at how this could be presented or phrased in a better way. The argument that society has gone a long time without something does not make the case that such a thing is uneccessary. Consider something like electricity. That is a very comparitively recent discovery which became widespread in a short space of time yet most people would say it IS essential to their lives. I think the idea of maintaining status quo until a convincing argument for change has been made is much better and if you did want to make your work accessible to a wider audience, this is the kind of point you should be focusing on more.

- The second argument is logically stronger but consider that your opponent may counter it by asking you whether, if the constitution only permitted marriage between people of the same race, that everyone would be afforded equal rights there. If you had a peanut allergy, would it be fair to say you had the same rights and opportunity to eat as everyone else if the only food the state made available to you were Snickers Bars?

- Finally, this work contains a lot of first person narrative and rhetorical questioning, much of which is quite informal. First person narrative is generally to be avoided in a philosophical or formal setting. I am also not sure whether you're aware of this, but the first person narrative you do include comes across as quite agitated. I appreciate that this is an issue you feel strongly about but the same points made in a calmer sounding manner may invite more consideration. Don't encourage your readers to dismiss your work as a rant. The same goes with value judgements such as 'Nothing about it makes sense'. Hopefully in presenting an argument to your readers you'll convince them of your viewpoint with the points you raise. Don't try to hammer home the conclusion in this way.

All the best to you.
7
7
Review by Stinger Author IconMail Icon
Rated: E | (4.0)
Hey PHS

Overall impression - I liked this a lot - thought narrator was believable and the story intriguing.

The main thing detracting from the work (in my humble opinion!) was a sometimes awkward sentence structure. An example:

This particular day in December I had had enough. I ran out the back door, the screen door slamming loudly behind me as I ran off into the forest. I need time to think.

The writing style has been demonstrated to be conversational up until this point. "I'd had enough" would be more consistent with this. 'I ran outside into the forest, the backdoor slamming loudly behind me', is a less drawn out way of saying the same thing and avoids the awkwardness of the repitition - back DOOR... screen DOOR, I RAN out the back door...I RAN off into the forest.

Another point would be to perhaps review your use of adjectives. eg 'sitting monotonously' 'crazy madman'. In the first instance that verb and adjective don't match well. In the second, the notion of crazy is inbuilt into 'madman' so could be dispensed with or substituted for something that would describe behaviour 'frantic', 'agitated', etc that would add something more rather than just repeating what you'd already said.

I know that might sound like nitpicking, but I think your work is good and it would only take some minor adjustments like this to potentially make it great.
7 Reviews · *Magnify*
Page of 1 · 25 per page   < >
Printed from https://writing.com/main/profile/reviews/stinger000