Back to Part 1 of written works

Phrenology;

The lecture provides a critical evaluation of Franz Joseph Gall theory about brain [k4: article and word order] 's theory about the brain, called phrenology, largely refuting its claims while acknowledging some of its contributions to nowadays mental knowledge [k3: unnatural phrase] modern psychological science. The lecturer highlights several key points that contrast with the ideas presented in the reading passage [k4: tautology] in the reading.

Firstly, the lecture directly challenges the core premise of phrenology that size of brain and skull shape [k4: article use] the size of the brain and skull shape have any [k2:sense] significant effect on human’s intelligence [k4: possessive error] human intelligence or personality. The lecturer dismisses this notion by pointing out that studies showed that many people with smaller brain [k4: singular/plural agreement] smaller brains are very clever and its size doesn’t affect on their ability to think [k4: incorrect preposition and agreement] its size doesn’t affect their ability to think.

However, the lecture also acknowledges that Gall's work was not entirely without merit. The lecturer concedes that, as Franz Joseph said, different parts of brain [k4: article needed] the brain control different human’s functions [k4: incorrect possessive] human functions. If certain piece of brain injuries [k4: ungrammatical noun phrase, verb voice] a certain part of the brain is injured, patient will [k4: article and auxiliary verb] the patient will have a problem with mental function which this part was responsible for [k4: awkward phrasing] the mental function this part was responsible for. These illnesses will differ based on which part of brain [k4: article needed] the brain was damaged.

Moreover, the lecture supports Gall's notion that the human mind comprises several different forms for any mental ability. The lecturer points out that Gall's idea of 37 mental powers partly not true [k4: incorrect structure] is not entirely accurate, but indeed our brain based on these abilities has [k4: awkward phrasing] our brain consists of multiple types of intelligence.

In conclusion, while the lecture refutes the fundamental premise of phrenology regarding the correlation between brain size and ability to think [k4: article needed] the ability to think, it acknowledges and supports some of Gall’s contributions to brain parts difference and functions that they have [k4: word order and structure] differences in brain regions and their corresponding functions. Thus, the lecture provides a balanced critique, recognizing the flaws in Gall's theories while also appreciating the lasting impact of some of his ideas on psychology and science about brain [k4: article and phrasing] the science of the brain.

Independent writing

1. While I appreciate the points mentioned by Max and Emma, I think that they are both right and wrong in some aspects of their opinions. / While I recognize the value in both Max and Emma’s perspectives, I believe their arguments are partially valid and partially flawed.

2. While Max raised the relevant point that indeed these modern data-driven profiling techniques make many mistakes as well as phrenology [k4: awkward phrasing and conjunction use] a valid point that, like phrenology, modern data-driven profiling techniques often make mistakes, but [k4: redundant conjunction after "while"] (remove) he didn’t mention that they are constantly developed [k4: passive voice awkward here] are constantly being improved by scientists and work better [k3: vague phrasing] perform more accurately every year. As a result, someday they might have reached a moment, when they will work correctly every time. [k4: incorrect tense and modal structure] As a result, they may eventually reach a point where they function flawlessly.

3. On the other side [k3: incorrect idiom, should be "On the other hand"] On the other hand, Emma said that phrenology was unscientific and biased from the start, but studies proven [k4: verb tense] studies have proven that some of its theories, such as particularly,  a statement that different parts of brain control different functions [k4: article and phrasing] 0the idea that different parts of the brain control different functions, were right. So phrenology can help in nowadays techniques. [k3: awkward and incorrect phrasing] Thus, phrenology may still offer insights for current technologies.

4. I think that there are, indeed, meaningful parallels between phrenology and modern data-driven profiling techniques, but they are not negative [k3: vague phrasing] these parallels should not necessarily be seen as negative. Based on phrenology experience [k4: article and possessive form needed] phrenology specialists'00 experience, nowadays technologies can take its right statements and know what should not be used too [k3: unclear and awkward construction] retain its valid insights while avoiding its flawed assumptions.

The lecture challenges the validity of the theory presented in the reading passage regarding the role of genes in natural selection.

Firstly, it disputes the hypothesis that genes are reliably inherited solely from parents, force or do not let to develop [k3, k4: awkward verb construction - "let" is a modal verb!] can activate or suppress some of them, even if those genes are present in an animal's DNA.

Secondly, it refutes the idea that they are predictable [k4: vague subject—clarify 'they'] genes can reliably predict traits and that scientists can analyze evolutionary trends with them. It points out that gene expression can vary significantly depending on environmental conditions. For example, it mentions water flies that changed different [k4: ungrammatical phrase] developed different traits from one another in response to danger.

Finally, it questions the theory that genes are only one fundamental drivers [k4: subject-verb agreement and article misuse] the only fundamental drivers of evolution, suggesting that mental and other changes [k4: vague noun phrase] cognitive and behavioral factors also contribute significantly.

Independent Writing_Education and genes

I strongly agree with Max. I think that any child can progress and develop significantly in academic and not spheres [k4: awkward construction] both academically and in other areas if it receive [k4: subject-verb agreement] they receive intensive, high-quality instruction from a young age. But I would add that it all will happen only if child want it. [k4: article misuse, tense error] However, this will only happen if the child is motivated.

While Sofia raised a relevant point that family has a big influence too [k3: informal phrasing] also plays a significant role, I am still sure that the person, who wants to succeed and ready to do everything for it [k4: sentence structure error] a determined person who is willing to work hard will reach its goal [k4: pronoun agreement] their goal no matter what.

For example, we know many successful individuals who born [k4: verb form error] were born into poor families but still succeeded. One of them is Apple inventor Steve Jobs, whose foster parents were very poor.

In conclusion, I would say that everyone has its chance [k4: pronoun agreement] their chance to succeed, especially with external support, but only if the person truly desires it.

Plant intelligence

The text under analysis [k2: phrase not relevant to the task] reading passage states that plants respond more effectively on [k4: incorrect preposition] effectively to the same challenges that they experienced before. It explains that they have stress memory [k3: vague term—try a clearer phrase] a kind of memory for stress which can help them in critical situations. Author of the text [k3: article missing] The author states that this ability is based on epigenetic changes that modify how genes are expressed alter gene expression. It can help agriculture a lot [k1: style too informal] significantly because plants will be able to survive in hard climate [k3: wrong collocation+k4:grammar] harsh climates and farmers will not spend as much money on chemicals.

The lecture elaborates on this idea, illustrating it with several specific examples of how plants react[k2:coherence: unfinished phrase]to adverse conditions and how it can be used.

Firstly, the professor describes how scientists gave plants mild stress to them react on it better [k4: ungrammatical structure] so they would react better to it in the future. Certain plants experienced harsh conditions and after them they developed [k4: ungrammatical pronoun use] afterward, they developed deeper roots. This reaction was passed to the next generation. It shows how plants not only recovered but got better [k3: too informal] adapted more effectively, demonstrating their ability to build immunity from same challenges [k4: article + preposition error] to the same challenges.

Secondly, he mentions the technology named [k3: inappropriate register] called priming, in which plants got [k4: nonstandard verb form] where plants were given a controlled amount of stress to build resistance from it [k4: wrong preposition] against it. As a result, they started to respond more effectively on this stress [k4: preposition error] to this stress, proving that this method can be used to improve agriculture in places with rough conditions.

Finally, the professor explains plants reaction on [k4: missing possessive + wrong preposition] plants’ reaction to high temperature, where their certain stress response genes started to work better [k4: overly wordy + k3:primitive wording] certain stress response genes became more active, indicating that this memory also works on temperature changes [k4: wrong preposition] in response to temperature changes.

In this way, the lecture supports the ideas in the text by providing real-life studies that demonstrate, confirm, and expand upon how stress memory helps plants to respond [k3: lexical repetition – verb repeated excessively] to cope on [k4: incorrect preposition – use “to” after “respond” or “cope”] with same challenges [k4: article missing; “same” is followed by a definite noun] the same stressors.

Independent writing_plants in cities

1. While I appreciate Lena’s and Marco’s opinions about cities incorporating adaptive plant systems into their design to deal with environmental challenges like air pollution or extreme weather, I personally think that they both right and wrong in some parts of their statements [k4: verb missing; unclear phrasing] personally think that they are both right and wrong in parts of their arguments / I believe their points are partially valid but also flawed in certain respects.

2. I would say that plants and pollution preventing technologies [k4: unnatural compound adjective – use hyphenated form] pollution-preventing technologies must be combined to help cities. Indeed, using only plants can take too much time and money [k3: informal and vague phrasing] relying solely on vegetation may require significant time and resources, but technologies are not cheap too [k4: incorrect word order; informal tone] but technology is also costly and also [k3: redundancy] and can create problems when they break.

3. For example, in my city government builds many recycling fabrics [k4: wrong word – 'fabrics' is incorrect here; 'plants' or 'facilities' is needed] the government builds many recycling plants and uses other technologies to prevent pollution, but also there are [k4: unnatural word order] there are also many parks and trees that create fresh air / that contribute to cleaner air quality.

4. So in conclusion, only combination of nature and machines can prevent pollution and other disasters [k4: article missing; unnatural phrasing] In conclusion, only a combination of natural elements and technological solutions can effectively combat pollution and environmental threats.