- Post your two weakest sentences here via comment. Explain what you think makes each a dud of a sentence.
- Comment (edit, revise, suggest fixes) for two other people’s sentences. (Note–try to comment on sentences that no one’s tackled yet. No one sentence should have more than 3 comments/fixes under it. Let’s make sure everyone receives a bit of feedback!)
Ms. Kitchens' Corner 
1) Throughout the course of events, America’s food, and how unhealthy it is, has recently become a concern.
2) There is no ordinary thing citizens do when they eat a meal, no “hoo-rahs,” no exquisite satisfaction that a man from France expresses every time he eats.
hey Kelsey
The First sentence could be changed to sound less like The Declaration of Independence. The “Throughout the course of events” seems out of place in a modern paper about the Industrial Food Pipeline, and while it works in revolutionary documents of the late 1700’s, it make the sentence vague. I would either remove that point or describe the events. For the Second sentence I think could be worded to lead into the question better. Instead of using a list of example, shorten the sentence or perhaps remove the part about France. It could also be worded to mention France first with and example, then another sentence about American meals. This contrast will lead into the question better.
I think that your sentence is on the right track but like you said the wording is a little awkward so here is another possibility of rewording the sentence: Fast-food and unhealthy diets have become apart of the All American Family lifestyle, and has just recently become a vital concern to the American people.
In the second sentence with more detail i believe that it can become a really powerful sentence here is an idea of what the sentence could attain: The American people have no tradition when it comes time to sit at the dinner table, no two hour long meals or even the fellowship with family and friends similar to the ways of the French.
1.) Her life in the town became a misery. (Just sucks)
2.) The Crucible, a great example of fear and the challenge on a good mans name. (Fragment)
~Shannon F.
For the second sentence maybe add something at the end because it leaves you kind of hanging. It is not a complete sentence.
For the first sentence I would rearrange the way it is stated. You could say something like”Her life became miserable in the town becasue…” And then give reasons.
I think that the first one was just a little… too little. It’s missing that oomph that makes it a compelling, impacting sentance.
“In her town, where judgement was harsh and heavy, her life fell to misery and lonlieness.”
1. While the government is trying to fix the problems that already exist, food keeps getting worse and worse.
In this sentence I need to state what aspect of the food industry keeps getting worse. It is very vague.
2.Food manufacturing dominates and it will not change.
This sentence is weak because it is short. I should add why food manufacturing dominates. The last part “it will not change” seems awkward.
The first sentence should probably be similar to: “While the government is trying to fix the problems that already exist, food -namely fast food- keeps getting worse and worse.
The second sentence should also mention what it dominates. The last part, “it will not change” isn’t really awkward when kept in sentence, but if you really feel that it’s awkward, then I would suggest taking it out.
The first sentence is vague. Defiantly explain how the government is trying to fix the problem, but most importantly explain and or give examples on how the food is getting worse.
For the second sentence i recommend changing the sentence to: Industrial food manufacturing dominates the food production industry and it will not change its ways. Even then, still back up why the food manufacturing will not change.
1. “A women or man can be accused of witchcraft if they have a bad reputation.”
First off, the sentence was SUPPOSED to say, “Any women or man can be accused of witchcraft, if they have a bad reputation.” And even that is weak, because even though John Proctor had a good reputation, he was still accused. Its badly worded.
2. “The importance of one reputation is extreme.”
This sentence is so short, it would be better if I backed it up with evidence (A quote would work nicely). The word extreme in this sentence is awkward. It sounds like I just cut off in the middle of a sentence.
For the first sentence this may help give it more depth and power: No matter the gender, if a person had a bad reputation then they would be declared in bond with the devil and accused of conjuring spirits.
On the second sentence i agree with your oppinion on how to fix it and adding a quote would help defend your statement. A way to reword the sentence might be: One’s reputation is of the utmost importance.
Hope it helped 🙂
I, personally, like the use of the word extreme. It’s a little different and gives the sentance a little bit more. However, you are right. The sentance is short and still missing a little something. I agree that evidence right after it, or even within it, is exactly what it needs.
Sorry, guys. The things that I find horribly wrong with those two sentences: they’re awkward sounding. I literally recall thinking, “I don’t know how to word this…” when I was writing them both. Number one is literally my hook, the very first sentence on my paper. Number two is right after mentioning that America has no family-time and no food culture. I then follow it with, “So, America, what culture exists here?”
1. “Arthur Miller’s The Crucible has two conflicts that it develops and finishes.”
Here my problem is the phrasing. When I wrote it I had a terrible time thinking of a way to end the sentence and thus I ended it with that clunker. Obviously the end can be stated in a better way.
2.”The other importance of a man’s reputation is to benifit his family long after he is gone.”
Again there was a phrasing issue. The point that I have is there and I go on to explain my point with evidence, but I still think it could have been worded better.
For the first sentence change”it developes and finish” to “form and resolve”. It will get rid of some of the awkwardness. For the second sentence after “benefit his family” you could change the rest of the sentence to “and leave a long surviving legacy”. It sounds nicer.
The first sentence makes sense, it’s just worded awkardly. You should probably identify the conflicts that you talk about and phrase it in a design that has a colon in it. So something like…”In The Crucible, Arthur Miller develops and finishes two conflicts: _________” and then say what the conflicts are where the blank is.
“The other importance” sounds like an immature style of writing to me. Maybe pick a different introductory like “additionally?” Maybe “moreover?”
I would probably word it like, “Moreover, man’s reputation benefits his family, even when he is gone.” A more simple…simpler? verb, more mature intro.
In the book during the court scene when Procter was trying to prove that Abigale was faking the bewitching and he was trying to prove his wife inocent,
-this is one pathetic run fragment of a bipolar sentence.
In the eyes of the public they believed that it was very important to worship god.
-this sentence is to vague to be the first sentence of one of my paragraphs.
for the 2nd one: add some backup, there are a lot of quotes where they talk about the importance of their religion.
I think the first problem is that, yeah, it’s a fragment. And that’s something that is hard to fix when it’s taken out of the context of the essay. But, if the sentence that followed tied together, you could make it a longer sentence with appropriate punctuation.
As for a rewrite,
In The Crucible, when Proctor is both trying to expose Abigail as a lier and prove his wife innocent…
And then add on something to make it a complete sentence.
The second sentence could use more detail, but it isn’t bad. I like your word choice- “In the eyes of” And adding a quote after this sentence would be a good place for evidence.
1. The locally grown foods offer a healthier choice for people.
I didn’t give any evidence to support this sentence and it could have been worded better.
2. People who only eat chain restaurant and non-locally grown foods should try eating the local food.
This sentence is personal opinion and strays away from the prompt.
For the first one try to put more detail. Tell why is it healthier and support it with a quote.
Instead of writing ‘people who only write in chain restaurants…”, you should just explain why people should eat locally.
In response to the first sentence: It is very very short, more adjectives would create a more elaborate sense…sooo….maybe throw in some parallel structure? Something along the lines of “The locally grown food offers a healthier, tastier, more profitable choice for the public.” Also, adding more specifics makes your statement sound stronger.
In response to the second sentence: The word “try” is weak. As is “should.” Maybe switch around the verb to eating, and take out “people.” So this type of thing: “Only eating chain-restaurants and food that is not grown locally all around terrible; people need to eat the food made around them.” Or maybe you could even change the topic, like the bigger picture of knowing where your food comes from and then elaborating on that with conrete details about local food.
1) In order to live longer and stay heathy is to live the ” industrial food pipeline.”
2)Because of the knowledge we have and the non action happening there are lives hurting.
I forgot to tell why I do not like these sentences.
For the first one, it is supposed to be my thesis. But it is just not very strong. It is not a WOW sentence.
For the second one, it is very confusing. It does not have good word order.
for the second one: I don’t think “non-action” would be a good word to use. If you changed it to a different, more academic one, and added a quote to back it up, it would make a lot more sense
For the first sentence, you could add a comma after the word “healthy,” because that is an introductory clause. Then, instead of “is to live the ‘industrial pipeline,'” you could write “one should live the “industrial pipeline'”. After this sentence, I would make sure to explain more about your meaning of living the “industrial pipeline.”
1. Miller shows us that the value of reputation is not all there is to life, and lies used to maintain one’s name will eventually be mankind’s downfall.
This sentence is pretty lengthy, and didn’t really make sense when reading it over again. I would put “one’s” inbetween of and reputation, and probably split up the sentence into 2 seperate ideas.
2. Lies, false accusation and corruption abounded in the seemingly pious souls of Salem.
I used this sentence as the last one in my intro paragraph. It was not my thesis, and did not show what my opinion was on the topic. I would insert this sentence somewhere else in my essay, just not where the thesis should have been.
You should split this sentence up with a semi colon after “life” and take out the word “and” to make two separate independent clauses. You could write “the” before “lies” in the second part of the sentence, so the reader knows “lies” is a noun, not a verb.
1. Miller believes that one’s reputation is what makes them stand out.
This sentence is vague and worded poorly. It was in my intro paragraph but is not the thesis, which makes it seem out of place and repetitive. It may need to be remove all together or placed somewhere else.
2. Through this Miller shows that reputation makes a person a specific person.
Here is a sentence that is qualifying Arther Miller’s stance after a explanation of a quote. The sentence is poorly worded and needs to be restructured.
For your first sentence you can make it less vague by adding a dash or an appositve between “reputation” and “is”. It could say something like, “whether infamously bad or saint-like”. For the second sentence change the “specific person” to a word like unique. It will get rid of the awkwardness.
I think a comma after “through this” would allow it to read better; the repetition of “person” is what’s going to throw off a reader.
Through this, Miller shows that reputations define who someone is in the eyes of others, even if it isn’t always true.
(Perhaps?)
1. The people of Salem based their lifestyle on the hope to keep a good reputation.
I do not like this sentence, because it is not very specific and does not make sense.
2. The affair can also prove that Abigail is lying to the court about Elizabeth taking part in witchcraft; the judges would then understand the true reason why abigail want Elizabeth killed.
This sentence is long, unorganized, and contains a poor choice of words.
1. I actually understand what you are trying to say. The only change I can think of is saying something about how if you had a good reputation you had a better life as opposed to having a bad one.
2. I would add to be in between Elizabeth and Killed. I understand what you are trying to get across though.
I like your first sentence quite a bit. I think that perhaps just a change of wording, like “One of the main goals in a Salem lifestyle was to have a good reputation”. Or maybe elaborate a bit, like how they would do this, or why.
I would change the second sentence to something shorter, but I like your use of the semi-colon, and I get what your trying to say. Perhaps sacrifice the semi-colon for a shorter and more understandable idea
1.It all comes down to the fact that Miller believes that reputation is important and I will be proving that.
I hate the last part of this sentence and its mainly because it sounds really awkward and I don’t know how to fix it. Even though this answers the prompt and is my thesis the end is just really weird.
2.Reputations of people play a key role in The Crucible and as Miller develops the story we see the truth about characters and what should have happened.
At the end I meant to imply that we learned how the story should have turned out ie. who should have lived and who should have been sent to prison and all that jazz. I guess it sounded right in my mind. I’m just not sure of how to rewrite it so it works.
For the first sentence, you could just take out the ‘I will be proving that” part. You don’t really need it because you will be proving what Miller believes without saying that you are proving it.
For the First sentence remove the “and I will be proving that” part. That is the point of he essay. For the Second sentence it may be best to just rewrite the sentence entirely because the wording you use does not fit well with reputation.
For the First sentence remove the “and I will be proving that” part. That is the point of the essay. For the Second sentence it may be best to just rewrite the sentence entirely because the wording you use does not fit well with reputation.
I think for the last sentence, the “of people” after “reputations” isn’t really necessary. And maybe a comma before “and.” It just seems really long, I guess.
1. Most people believe that being a social outcast is the worst fate because of the possible loneliness and ridicule.
[I felt like it was choppy, and didn’t run as smoothly as ther other sentences; my word choice bugged me.]
2. Normal, in the time period of The Crucble, is that slaves are around, that witchcraft is evil, and that reputation is important.
[Again, I felt my word choice was poor and that the sentence is missing that little kick to make it at least passable.]
I think the last sentence is actually really good it should just be worded differently. I would say “In the time period the crucible was written it was normal..” and then continue the rest of the sentence from there.
In your second sentence you could put your three examples first and then say that they were considered normal. Something like, “The institution of slavery, witchcraft seen as evil and the importance of reputation were all normal components in the time period of The Crucible.”
1.Oil Is taking over our country. The people depend on it. But, oil is also a main factor in the downfall of this country.
It’s really awkward sounding and repetitive. And It just doesn’t make sense.
2.Although, she did eat mean she did so in a much less harmful way. All the people eat was once a living thing. As simple as that sounds it is often overlooked.
The sentences don’t go well together and the way they are stated and they don’t really seem to be in the right order. it’s like I am jumping from one thing to another without really explaining myself in the first place.
mean=meat
Your first sentence is very centered around oil. Maybe instead of restating the word so much you could state your point all and then give a fact. instead of repeating yourself.
Your second sentence doesnt really seem to have a point to it. Maybe you could give a textual example to show what you are trying to prove.
1. Kingsolver’s stance on the “industrial food pipeline” is shown honestly and truly throughout the book.
I could have used better word choice and it does not show what Kingsolver’s stance is.
2. Her purpose of this book is to make sure people know what is happening with their food.
This sentence does not make any sense and does not explain what the purpose of the book really is.
I think your first sentence was more of a book summery than a statement. Maybe you could use bolder words and be more specific to get your point across.
Your second sentence has a good idea behind it but could use an example and maybe be put to use to prove your thesis.
Sentence 2 is easily remeidied. Kingslovers memoir investigates the dark and spooky eating habits of America and gives ways that America can fix its harmful proclvities.
1) “I absolutley stand by Kingsolver in her statement; one, because she has such credibility by not only talking the talk but walking the walk.” (THe word choice is very childish and the layout of the sentence is awkward).
2) “This is why I whole heartedly support Kingsolver’s stance on the Industrial Food Pipeline.” ( Again poor word choice!!!)
Help!!!!
i think for your first sentence needs a more sophisticated analogy at the end.
Your second sentence needs something else, maybe “And this is why i whole haredly support Kingsolver’s stance on the Industrial Food Pipeline.”
I think the first sentence might sound better if you remove the semi-colon and “one”. Numbering makes the essay sound like a list, which I’m pretty sure is not what Mrs. Kitchens would want
1)In her book Animal Vegetable Miracle she shows how her way to get food and stay healthy.(poor word choice)
2)This is another big money crisis in our world and the Kingsolvers way of life also saves on this.( this is a transition talking bout gas and money, not very good)
For number one instead of saying she or her maybe say Kingsolver just to make your sentence more clear.
Number two sounds a bit like a fragment, probably want to add more detail to make the sentence complete.
~Shann
For sentence one I would change the order of the sentence to something more like “Barbra Kingsolver shows her way to eat healthily in her book ‘Animal Vegetable Miracle'”. I think it would feel smoother and not be as awkward. For the second sentence I would tie in expensive gas with it, like “Gas isn’t the only thing that’s expensive, but Kingsolver finds a way to save on it,” but better worded.
I am slightly confused on the second sentence. It’s like you tried to use a conjunction to join, but it is smushed together and does not flow.
1.) He saw his daughter and niece dancing in the forest and desperately tried to cover it up, and it was not revealed until John Proctor went to court to save his wife. (Plot summary, run on, poorly worded)
2.) In this play many examples are shown of how much a reputation can effect you, and every one that it shows are as a true as they are terrifying. (Poorly worded, run on)
To change the run-on aspect of this dentence I would make 2 sentences. like: Parris saw his niece and daughter dancing in the woods and because he did not openly admit this fact his story was not as credible. To make a 2nd sentece i would: John Protor revealed this shocking story to the court and it made Parris look like schoolboy with a dunce hat worn sideways.
I literally laughed out loud when I read about the dunce hat. I am definitely using that
First off, Annie, love the name 😉
So for your first sentence, I think “and” is awkward. Maybe, like Gary said, two sentences would be better. Like: He saw his daughter and niece dancing in the forest and desperately tried to cover it up. However, it was not revealed until John Proctor went to court to save his wife.
As much as anyone would like to disagree with Barbra Kingslover she is spot on correct about America’s eating habits.
Reason: I believe ut uses poor audience address and is worded poorly.
Living like this would be her goal for America, but it is indeed quite impossible.
Reason: I believe that this sentence is too pesimistic.
For the first sentence I would change it to something like: As much as today’s public would like to disagree with Barbra Kingslover, she is correct about America’s eating habits. You could also say that America’s public instead of anyone. it would be more direct on the audience.
In the second sentence i would take off the “but it is indeed quite possible”. Putting it in a milder way such as: “But for some people this life style is impossible.” which might be better, but leaving it out altogether might be the best choice.
For the first sentence, your word choice and structure of “spot on correct” doesn’t flow very easily to me. Use different wording for the end of that sentence.
For the first sentence i would change it to: As much as people want to disagree with Barbara Kingsolver she is correct about America’s eating habits.
Thanks guys for the suggestions they are qquite helpful.
1. John Proctor, I believe, was the most inspirational spirit within in the play. ( This sentence could be improved by taking out the obvious ” i believe” statement, and also by replacing the word was with the word is. John Proctor will always be in the play therefore he should be written about in present-tense.)
2. Although it took Proctor more than enough time to control his moral compass he allowed himself to give in to his desire to be good, leaving reputation in the dust. ( This sentence is very long and could afford to be abridged. The word moral compass should be one word, and a comma might be appropriate after the first word.)
You’re right about the first sentence, but I feel like you need to explain what you mean by “inspirational spirit”. Maybe you explained it in another sentence, but if not, it’d be welcomed if you did.
The sentence almost sounds as if it needs a comma after “compass” and I’m thinking that “in to his desire” is really, “into his desire”.
1. Barbara Kingsolver’s novel, “Animal, Vegetable, Miracle” is a book for society.
Reason: First off, I know it should be italicized, I just don’t know how to do it on here. Anyways, this sentence was a really crappy opener, I just had no other thoughts on how to do it. Opening sentences are usually the worst thing in my essays.
2. His first of many, entitled “Oily Foods,” is all about the process by which these foods are actually transported.
Reason: It just feels really relaxed and laid back.
I actually think these sentences are pretty good. The only thing I can think to improve them is to make them stronger and more purposeful. However, I don’t find them “weak” as they are. 🙂
1.) “This time, it isn’t current time, but 7 months in the past.” Wording, comma use…?
2.) “Obviously, the fact that he might still, could ruin him (his reputation if you know what I mean.)” Too casual, not specific…?
the parenthesis in #2 is unneccesarry. I would put the idea that is in the () and insert it into the entire sentence. Also, “if you know what i mean” sounds too informal.
I agree with linnae. Also, the wording in #2 sounds strange… You might want to check your comma usage
1. I respect her argument because, yes it does reduce a lot of fossil fuel used to transport foods that we consume that we can be making so easily in our backyards. -Run on, doe not flow.
2. I agree with her that it would be better for our environment. -Vague, not specific enough.
Yes, I agree. The first sentence needs a turn and the second needs some specificity. 🙂
Yes, on your second one, try to connect it more with detail.
I don’t believe you need the comma in the first sentence. And yes you need to add more detail to the second sentence.
1.) Perhaps one of Kingsolver’s strongest arguments that local food is superior is the taste of it.
2.) The industrial food pipeline is convenient and is the only reason people argue for it. Awwwkwaard phrasing…
1. You could rephrase by saying “Perhaps one of Kinsolver’s strongest arguments is that local food has a superior taste.” It would flow better this way.
2. Instead you could say “The only reason people support the industrial food pipeline is because of its convinience.”
For the first, it might be better to add some evidence, the sentence is slightly bare, and maybe if you re-worded it, it’d flow better.
And the second is kind of confusing, maybe rewording it to clarify, “The only reason people defend the industrial food pipeline, is because it’s convenient.”
1.) There is one last good point that Kingsolver made. (Word choice, sounds weird)
2.) Such as electricity if need be. (Fragment)
For the first sentence maybe say: Kingsolver makes many good points, but this last point is the best.
The second sentence needs to go into detail or be taken out.
1. The pipeline cannot last forever. (vauge and does not make a good transition to the next paragraph; could have made my stance more clear)
2. People don’t realize what extra things are put into our food that do not need to be there. (“things” can be changed to a more descriptive word and texual information can be added to make the sentence more relevant; its sounds weird)
“she believes that Procter still has feelings for her and that he is going to come to her bed at night again”
“abigail Williams had an affair with john Procter”
Both these sentences sound really short to me. Like fragments.
You can kind of merge these two sentences together. I think it would kind of make everything seem more complete if you start off with the second sentence then flow into the first with a conjunction or phrase, like “and now.”
Though then you would have to change the tense as both kind of vary in that sense.
Neither of them are fragments. You could maybe add some adjectives in the second sentences. That would spice it up some more.
1) With the ever constant emphasis on reputation in Arthur Millers book, it can be safe to assume that his stance was quite high on the value of ones reputation. (awkwardly phrases, and a bit wordy)
2) His fear is justifiable, though, as it seems that the brand of “witch” usually fell on the most unfortunate souls in the town. (unspecified pronoun, placed in the beginning of paragraph – off for first sentence)
For the second sentence, it would be good if it was in the middle of a paragraph, not at the beginning. It would work better if you defended it, back it up with evidence,
And for the first, the part about “his stance was quite high on the value of ones reputation.” Sounded kinda awkward, a better way to say it might be, “His stance on reputation is quite high.”
“The value of one’s reputation is valueable.” The lack of vocabulary. It has the word, or a word containing the root, “value” twice. It’s redundant and uneducated.
“Her sudden reputation for reading just when Lucifer is afoot maker her suspicious. This suspicion later leads to her death.” This (these) sentance on their own aren’t weak, but it would be stronger with evidence and I think the lack of evidence makes it weak.
1- The value of one’s reputation is important. You do not have to change much, just that one word
I have to agree that evidence would make the second one stronger. Like, why exactly would reading be a cause for suspicion? Like maybe start off your second sentence with something along the lines of “In a time when women reading was frowned upon….(enter second sentence)” Just pluck in some evidence and everything should flow together much more strongly.
1) “The price for getting all those foods to someones house really adds up in money as well as environmentally.” –sounds really awkward
2) “Genetically modified foods, which are commonly purchased at the local grocery store, are unnatural” –either sounds redundant or poorly worded. makes me want to say “no duh”
I agree, the second sentence sounds — not redundant — but verbose. In order to fix that, you could take out the “which….grocery store”. Then the sentence only focuses on “Genetically modified foods are unnatural”.
“Although, the rest of the harvest of corn goes to the cattle farmers so they can make hearty beef.” This is not a complete sentence, and can be easily fixed. No evidence was given later to back this.
“Meat and proteins are the largest factors to survive.” There was no evidence to make this correct, and there is a lack of vocabulary.