Keeping Sentences Logical

Before I ask you to revise sentences to clarify their claims or their logic, let’s first examine together some sentences that have appeared in recent student posts to see if we can 1) agree on what keeps them from being truly effective and 2) improve them.

  1. It asserts that polio can be eliminated by a simple oral vaccine but that local populations have resisted inoculation .
  2. Bill Gates who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to eradicate the problem has been impeded by paranoid civilians of affected countries.
  3. Despite strenuous efforts, immediate eradication of polio seems impossible.
  4. The rebellion against Polio vaccination in the middle east started with rumors; similarly, many Nigerians, based on rumors from ill-informed parents, innately fear that vaccinations will infect their children with disease.
  5. The Muslims lack faith in America because of the war in Iraq, and that if we (America) are in a war with the Middle East then we are also “fighting Muslims.
  6. He believes that one of the major reasons why polio is still around is because it isn’t as dangerous as AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, etc.
  7. The article also states that the reason why the GPEI wants to eradicate this particular disease is because they have the opportunity to “improve the world in a permanent way”.
  8. This article shows that there is some reason to be concerned over the vaccines that we are forcing upon the people of those nations because they are uncertain about what the vaccine might do to them.
  9. The people of Nigeria didn’t want the vaccine because it would put a halt to the deaths of many children.
  10. This article is from 2010 and it is about how the world is so close to being polio free, but because of a lack of funding, it is getting hard to finish off the last one percent.
  11. The main argument is that, Nigeria, one of the very few remaining locations where polio exists, is having difficulties trying to eliminate the virus.
  12. It also tells us how these shootings on vaccinators is appearing to not be a very uncommon occurrence.
  13. The countries all share similar challenges throughout the country.  Those challenges being weak health systems, insecurity and poor sanitation. Children and people living in these countries can easily spread the disease to other neighboring countries.
  14. Entering conflict zones throughout the world, ‘Days of Tranquility’ are negotiated to help reach every child in even the most remote parts of the world.
  15. Without vaccinating all of the people in Nigeria and related countries, polio will never be eradicated.
  16. The article focuses on the public anxieties about the false rumors of what is in the vaccinations. There were rumors that claimed the vaccinations had HIV and anti-fertility drugs in them, which were completely blasphemous.
  17. This article discusses recent events surrounding the polio controversy in Nigeria.
  18. A previous door-to-door campaign was launched in December where five female workers for the campaign were shot.
  19. It also mentions U.N. members having concern over health workers safety and concerns for their lives.
  20. Ultimately the article gets at proposal claims attempting to decide that if providing the vaccinations is worth risking the lives at stake.

The Exercise

The following sentences from student essays make claims that sound conversationally effective at best. Some don’t rise to even that level of persuasiveness. In every case, they fail to stand up to scrutiny. Their syntax thwarts readers’ attempts to follow a logical argument. Let’s work together to rewrite these sentences so that they make clear, logical claims. Some may require more information than they provide.

  1. With our great nation being founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land, the past is too important to ignore.
  2. By supporting these foreign revolutions can result in damage to our own country.
  3. Concentrating on our own concerns will make us a stronger nation, and in this action, other countries will follow the same suit.
  4. The Revolutionary War established our country and government, but look at all the blood that had to be shed to accomplish that; was it worth it?
  5. Changes to the ruling class cause political stress because those who lead will tend to be ruthless, which isn’t necessarily true.
  6. As a democratic country, there would be no reason for an uprising.
  7. Instead of more lives being taken by war when the Americans won their revolution, the British vacated the colonies.
  8. By intervening in countries engaged in revolution, little damage will be done to America.
  9. It could carry a very heavy price tag if America is reluctant to learn from its history.
  10. Looking at other revolutions’ characteristics are similar to the American revolution.
Advertisements

About davidbdale

Inventor of and sole practitioner of 299-word Very Short Novels. www.davidbdale.wordpress.com
This entry was posted in David Hodges, Logical Sentences, Professor Post, Writing Tips. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Keeping Sentences Logical

  1. tbrody92 says:

    1. The past is too important to ignore when the land you’re living on was founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land.

    Fine, but can you eliminate the “you”?

    2. Supporting these foreign revolutions can result in damage to our own country.

    Sure, but why “result in”? How about: Supporting foreign revolutions can damage our own country?

    3. By concentrating on our own nation’s concerns, other countries will follow the same suit.

    Not even close. This one says that other countries concentrate on our concerns.

    4. Was the Revolutionary War worth all of the bloodshed in order to establish our country and government?

    A reasonable sentence, but as a dreaded Rhetorical Question, it cannot be tolerated. Turn it into a bold, positive claim. The RW was worth it; or it wasn’t; don’t quibble.

    5. Changes to the ruling class causes political stress to those who lead, causing them to be ruthless, however, this isn’t necessarily true.

    What isn’t true: that changes cause stress, or that stress causes ruthlessness? You haven’t solved the problem.

    6. There would be no reason for an uprising in a democratic country.

    Awesome.

    7. The British vacated the colonies to avoid more fatalities after the Americans won the Revolution.

    Equally awesome.

    8. Little damage will be done to America by intervening in countries engaged in revolution.

    You are on a roll.

    9. America’s reluctancy to learn from it’s history comes with a very heavy price tag.

    Good except reluctancy isn’t a word and “it’s” is misused.

    10. Other revolutions’ characteristics are similar to the American Revolution.

    So close. Other revolutions are similar to the AR, but their’ characteristics aren’t. The problem is solved here with a simple apostrophe: similar to the American Revolution’s.

  2. adkins70 says:

    1 America’s foundation on stolen land is too important to ignore.

    Nice.

    2 Support of foreign revolution can yield damage to our native land.

    I like the pattern I see developing here. But, while you’re on this brevity track, why not: Support of foreign revolution can damage our native land.? Because, really, yield damage to?

    3 Self-improvement is the best way for all countries to grow stronger.

    Wow. I’m not even looking at the original, I like this improvement so much!

    4 The establishment of America was not worth the lives lost.

    Now you’ve gone too far. We would sincerely like to know exactly which cost of establishing America you assert was too expensive.

    5 (Does not make sense)

    That may be, but the exercise sort of encourages you to revise the sentence so that it does.

    6 Democracy does not encourage uprisings.

    Huh. Hmmm. Again without consulting the original, this seems a radical restatement of the author’s claim. But very worthwhile, if also transgressive. Thought-provoking, which is NEVER bad; but unfair, which can be. Is it a statement of purported fact, or a rule? If a rule, it’s violated all the time. If a claim, it’s honored “more in the breach.” I hate and love it. Thank you, Brent.

    7 When America won the revolution, the British vacated the colonies.

    Boo-yah.

    8 Intervening in foreign revolutions will yield little damage to America.

    Yeah? I thought the original said lots of damage.

    9 America needs to learn from its past.

    Hear, hear.

    10 Other revolutions are similar to the American revolution.

    This too may be a radical oversimplification of the original. However, I’m more compelled to applaud the economy than question the faithfulness to the lousy original.

  3. adamtwths says:

    1. Our great nation was founded on the blood, sweat, and tears of our fore fathers.

    This completely misses the point of the original, Adam.

    2.Supporting foreign revolutions can result in turmoil to our own country.

    Good to get rid of the “By.”

    3.All nations will become stronger when they focus on their own pressing matters.

    Way better than the original!

    4.Was establishing our own country worth the horrible bloodshed of the revolutionary war?

    I cannot accept a Rhetorical Question as a rewrite, Adam. Make a bold clear claim instead. The RW was worth it, or it wasn’t.

    5.The stereotype of the “ruthless ruler” has made the elections stressful.

    Wow. F-in’ wow. You turned “which isn’t necessarily true” into a positive claim about stereotyping. I’m stunned by the elegance and beauty of that. I will say nothing more about this number. I bow to you, Adam.

    6.Uprising is rare in a democratic nation.

    I love this too, Adam, although the rarity doesn’t quite capture the “non-necessity.” All the same, you really are thinking clearly here, aren’t you?

    7. Instead of wasting more lives the British left the colonies after loosing the war.

    Good god that’s nice. But . . . “loosing”? Turd in the punch.

    8.By never fighting on our own soil, America is safe.

    There’s a big difference between “not fighting” locally and “fighting” elsewhere. Your sentence ignores that difference.

    9.If America doesn’t learn from its mistakes, we could be in trouble.

    This rules.

    10.Other nation’s revolutions are similar to our own.

    Honestly, Adam. Did you take my Comp I? I’d like to take credit for your sentence-making ability. 🙂

  4. primav01 says:

    DAN PRIMAVERA
    1. Our great nation was founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land, creating a past for our nation that can not be ignored.

    Very nice, Dan. “Cannot” is always one word.

    2. Supporting foreign revolutions can result in internal damage to our own country because of our over-involvement in other nations.

    This will be a long comment for such a short entry, Dan, but an important one. Is “supporting revolution” an example of a broader category of “over-involvement”? If so—and I think you and I think it is—then the proper phrasing of your sentence would be: Supporting foreign revolutions, or any other over-involvement in other nations, can result in internal damage to our own country. I hope you see why this is so much better than your version. If not, please ask.

    3. Putting our own concerns first will make us a stronger nation, giving other countries a strong building block to look up to.

    Your improvement is a good one, Dan. It eliminates the problem of the original. But your metaphor, that other countries “look up to a building block,” is quite awful. 🙂 No, really. It’s awful. We look up to flags, achievers, summits. But not building blocks. We build on building blocks. I’m having fun at your expense, Dan, but be careful with your metaphors. When they don’t work, they crush you, like a falling building block.

    4. The Revolutionary War established our country and government, which may not have been worth it in some persons eyes because of all the bloodshed.

    Stake a stand, Dan. You can’t go to jail for having an opinion . . . yet. The RW was worth it; or it wasn’t. Choose and say so. Don’t quibble in this class, ever.

    5. Political stress caused by a change in rule is a relevant issue because of a large amount of those who have lead ruthlessly, which is not true in all cases.

    Don’t do either of these for me, Dan: “is a relevant issue because of . . . . ,” or “because of . . . which is not true.” Your readers can’t tell what’s not true. Read it again. There’s no way to know what you’re claiming isn’t true.

    6. Most truly democratic run countries tend to have little or no uprisings.

    Prepare for jerkiness, Dan. What’s the difference between a democratic country and a “democratic run” country? What’s the difference between “little or no” and “few”? So, why not: Democratic countries have few uprisings?

    7. If the British had just allowed the Americans to take the colonies to be their own, no blood would have been shed, although this is not a plausible situation.

    Yours is logical, Dan, but it does serious damage to the original, which doesn’t offer an alternative. It merely says: “To spare more war dead, the British vacated the colonies when the Americans won their revolution.”

    8. Little damage is done to America when intervening into other countries revolutions.

    I don’t know how picky to be here with you, Dan. Your sentence says that damage intervenes. What you really mean is that: America does itself little damage when it intervenes into other countries’ revolutions. That apostrophe in “countries'” is essential.

    9. If America does not learn from their past, there could be detrimental affects to their stability as a nation.

    OK, but weak. Is America plural? You say “their past,” as if you’re talking about 300 million citizens. And “detrimental effects to their stability” is very weak. I’m going to suggest: “Failure to learn from its past will weaken America’s stability.” Could you memorize that as a mantra, Dan? It’s a marvel of economy that could serve you well as a model.

    10. Looking at other nations revolutions can help to explain the spread of the disease well and discusses the issues that have been occurring while trying to rid the world of it.

    That’s funny. I don’t know how you managed to combine fragments from two sentences, but your version of a sentence that doesn’t exist is pretty good (except that “nations” needs an apostrophe, and the disagreement between “explain” and “discusses” is fatal).

  5. smithk53 says:

    1. The past is too important to ignore.

    That part’s fine, but you’ve sacrificed the context completely for the brevity. Not cool.

    2.Supporting foreign revolutions could result in damage to our own country.

    Much better.

    3. By a country concentrating on their own concerns, they will become a stronger nation.

    You haven’t solved the problem with this sentence, Kirsten. The “By” phrase is death if it doesn’t attach clearly to a subject. “They” doesn’t cut it. It’s the country that concentrates or doesn’t, so: By concentrating on its own concerns, a country . . . .

    4.Was the bloodshed from the Revolutionary War worth the establishment of our great country?

    First of all, you mean: was the country worth the bloodshed, not the other way around.

    Second, you are not permitted to use wimpy rhetorical questions as substitutes for strong clear claims. Say whether the revolution was worth the bloodshed or it wasn’t. Comp II is not for quibblers.

    5.Changes to ruling class could cause political stress.

    Wow. You completely neutered this sentence. Put the balls back, please.

    6. In a democratic country there should be no reason for an uprising.

    Interesting. You acknowledge that it might happen but that it’s inexcusable: I like.

    7. The British vacated the colonies instead of continuing to fight the war.

    That’s good but incomplete; avoiding additional British deaths is an essential detail.

    8. Little damage will be done to America, by intervening in countries engaged in revolution.

    This comment may take awhile, Kirsten, but bear with me. Your sentence needs an active verb. “damage is done to America” is passive: damage “is done” by some unknown agent. The other phrase, “by intervening in countries,” seems to indicate, but not directly, that America intervenes. If your sentence said: “By intervening in countries engaged in revolution, America does little damage,” you’d have the active verb you need. But your sentence has no clear subject. It actually means: “Damage, by intervening, will be done.” That can’t be right. Can you rephrase?

    9. If America does not learn from its history, it could carry a very heavy price tag from war expenses.

    Another vague antecedent, I’m afraid, Kirsten. What does “it” mean? Grammatically, it means America could carry a heavy price tag. Too weird. Maybe you mean America could pay a hefty price. That would make sense. To say so: If America does not learn from history, she will spend heavily on war. Remember I advised you to eliminate needless if/then constructions? How about: America will either learn from history or pay heavily for war.

    10. Characteristics of other revolutions are similar to those of the American Revolution.

    Terrific! 🙂

  6. cdisarcina says:

    1] With our great nation being founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land, the past is too important to ignore.

    Our nation’s past is too important to ignore because we were founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land.

    Pretty good, Chris. Certainly an improvement. Doesn’t quite identify the foundation as the part of the past too important to ignore.

    2] By supporting these foreign revolutions can result in damage to our own country.

    Supporting foreign revolutions results in damage to our own country.

    Yep. Or can damage.

    3] Concentrating on our own concerns will make us a stronger nation, and in this action, other countries will follow the same suit.

    By concentration on our own concerns, not only do we become a stronger nation, but also, other nations will follow the same suit.

    Introducing a “by concentration” phrase doesn’t improve this sentence.

    4] The Revolutionary War established our country and government, but look at all the blood that had to be shed to accomplish that; was it worth it?

    The Revolutionary War was worth the bloodshed because we established our own country and government.

    Thank you for replacing the rhetorical question with a clear claim, Chris.

    5] Changes to the ruling class cause political stress because those who lead will tend to be ruthless, which isn’t necessarily true.

    Political stress is caused by changes to the ruling class, where those who lead tend to be ruthless.

    This does a good job of eliminating the confusion of what part isn’t true.

    6] As a democratic country, there would be no reason for an uprising.

    A democratic country has no reason for an uprising.

    Much better.

    7] Instead of more lives being taken by war when the Americans won their revolution, the British vacated the colonies.

    The British vacated the colonies when the Americans won their revolution.

    Yes. Saving British lives.

    8] By intervening in countries engaged in revolution, little damage will be done to America.

    Intervening in countries engaged in revolution results in little damage to America.

    Almost always better to eliminate the “by” phrase.

    9] It could carry a very heavy price tag if America is reluctant to learn from its history.

    America’s reluctance to learn from history carries a very heavy price tag.

    Nice work.

    10] Looking at other revolutions’ characteristics are similar to the American revolution.

    The American Revolution shares similar characteristics to other revolutions.

    Cool, but you can eliminate “similar.”

  7. kaileewhiting says:

    1. The past is too important to ignore with our great nation being founded on blood-soaked soil of other’s.

    The “with our great” phrase doesn’t identify the founding as the past too important to ignore.

    2. When we support these foreign resolutions we can potentially damage our own country.

    Good, Kailee, but you can still eliminate the unnecessary if/then or when/then. Like so: Supporting . . . can damage.

    3. Concentrating on our own concerns as a nation will make us stronger, and other countries will follow our lead.

    Very nice.

    4. Was all the blood shed in the Revolutionary War, which established a country and government, worth it?

    Well phrased, but please eliminate the rhetorical question with a positive claim. Always.

    5. It isn’t always true that those who lead are ruthless, but with the changes to the ruling class, it tends to happen more and more.

    I’m not a fan of the “tends to happen,” even less of the “more and more.” Why not: usually.

    6. Since this is a democratic country, there is no need for an uprising.

    Nice.

    7. When America won the revolution, instead of losing more lives, the British vacated the colonies.

    Very nice, Kailee. Retains all the original details.

    8. Intervening in countries in revolution will cause little damage to America.

    WAY better. Eliminates vagueness.

    9. A heavy price is to pay if America doesn’t learn from it’s past.

    Must get rid of “is to pay.” Also you’ve misused “it’s.”

    10. Other revolutions mimic characteristics of the American revolution.

    Mimic is really nice. Sounds so deliberate.

  8. briannewaters3 says:

    1. Our nation’s past is too important to ignore.
    True but you’ve lost too much of the original, Brianne. Brevity is wonderful, but you’ve thrown out the baby.

    2. Supporting foreign revolutions can cause damage to our own country.
    Very nice.

    3. Concentrating on internal issues will help strengthen our nation.
    Yes, and other countries will follow suit.

    4. Establishing our country and government, the Revolutionary War was
    You seem to have quit before the “worthwhile.” Good work eliminating the rhetorical question.

    5. Many believe that changes to the ruling class cause political stress. (I really didn’t like this one)
    It’s not bad. You could try: Many wrongly believe that changes to the ruling class always raise up ruthless leaders.

    6. An uprising seems unreasonable in a democratic country.
    I hated it until I loved it.

    7. The British vacated the colonies after the Americans won the Revolutionary War.
    True but a bit incomplete. How about: To save lives, the British vacated . . . .

    8. America will suffer minimal damage in intervening in foreign revolutions.
    I’m not crazy about “in intervening.”

    9. If reluctant to learn from its history, America will have to pay a high price.
    Beautiful. Could you eliminate “have to”?

    10. The characteristics of foreign revolutions resemble those of the American Revolution.
    Much better.

  9. anthonymatias97 says:

    1. The past is too important to ignore.
    Yes, but you’ve eliminated a crucial detail, Tony. I do love brevity, but you can’t gut the claim just to make it shorter. Yes, I am impossible to please.

    2. Supporting foreign revolutions can result in damage to our own country.
    Very nice. You could eliminate “result in” without changing the meaning at all.

    3. Concentrating on our nation’s concerns could make us the example for others to follow.
    I miss the “stronger nation” claim, but you’ve done a beautiful job of phrasing what’s left.

    4. Was the bloodshed of the Revolutionary War worth the high reward of independence?
    This also is brilliantly phrased, Tony, but please ALWAYS replace rhetorical questions with positive claims. Say it was worth it or it wasn’t.

    5. The uncertain chance in the ruling class caused much political stress.
    That’s a good half of it.

    • anthonymatias97 says:

      Here are my other 5 sentences:

      6. As a democratic country, there is no reason for an uprising.
      You haven’t solved the problem of this one, Tony. The modifier doesn’t attach to a subject. As a democratic country, we . . . is one choice. As a democratic country, America . . . is another. Better to eliminate it altogether if you can.

      7. After America won the revolution, the British vacated the colonies.
      Yes. To save British lives.

      8. Little damage will be done to America, by intervening in countries engaged in revolution.
      Good. Lose the comma.

      9. Failing to learn from our history could carry a heavy price tag for America.
      Sure. How about “could be costly”?

      10. The American Revolution shares similar characteristics to other revolutions.
      If they’re shared, they’re similar. Lose similar and you’ll want to change “to” to “with.”

  10. mmiddleton1 says:

    1. With our great nation being founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land, the past is too important to ignore.

    Our great nation’s past is too important with it being founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land.
    Really don’t like the “with it being,” Mike. How about: Our great nation’s foundation on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land is too important to forget.

    2. By supporting these foreign revolutions can result in damage to our own country.

    Supporting foreign revolutions can damage our country.
    Boo-yeah!

    3. Concentrating on our own concerns will make us a stronger nation, and in this action, other countries will follow the same suit.

    Other countries will mimic our concentration on our own concerns to becoming a stronger nation.
    I really like “Other countries will mimic”! On the other hand, “our own concerns to becoming” is, um, no.

    4. The Revolutionary War established our country and government, but look at all the blood that had to be shed to accomplish that; was it worth it?

    Despite the bloodshed, the Revolutionary War established our country and government.
    Back to genius!

    5. Changes to the ruling class cause political stress because those who lead will tend to be ruthless, which isn’t necessarily true.

    Leaders ruthlessness and changes to the ruling class causing political stress.
    I love the format, Mike. But you’ve forgotten an apostrophe in Leaders, and you must mean cause, not causing.

    6. As a democratic country, there would be no reason for an uprising.

    Democratic countries have no reason for an uprising.
    Brilliant.

    7. Instead of more lives being taken by war when the Americans won their revolution, the British vacated the colonies.

    The British vacated the colonies when the Americans won their war.
    They did and I like it. But to save lives.

    8. By intervening in countries engaged in revolution, little damage will be done to America.

    Little damage is done to America as a result of intervening in countries engaged in revolution.
    Pretty nice!

    9. It could carry a very heavy price tag if America is reluctant to learn from its history.

    There could be consequences if America is reluctant to learn from its history.
    Negative consequences?

    10. Looking at other revolutions’ characteristics are similar to the American revolution.

    Other revolutions’ characteristics are similar to America’s.
    Perfect.

  11. oconne92 says:

    1. The past is too important to ignore because our nation was founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land.
    That’s a big improvement. The “because” is still a little wiggly.

    2. Supporting these foreign revolutions can damage our own country.
    Perfect.

    3. Concentrating on our own concerns will make us a stronger nation and other countries will follow our example.
    Nice work. In this case, simple is best.

    4. Was it worth fighting the Revolutionary war to establish our country and government?
    Good but please ALWAYS replace rhetorical questions with bold positive claims.

    5. It’s not always true that those who lead become ruthless, even if changes to the ruling cause political stress.
    Brilliant. I love the way you’ve declared exactly what’s not true.

    6. As a democratic country, there is no reason for an uprising.
    Doesn’t quite work because “As a democratic country” has nothing to modify.

    7. The British vacated the colonies instead of taking lives when the Americans won the Revolutionary War.
    Beautifully phrased, but it makes the British seem reluctant to take American lives rather than cost themselves British lives.

    8. By aiding in countries engaged in revolution, little damage will be done to America.
    Like 6 above, this one makes the mistake of not resolving the modifier problem. What does “By aiding” modify?

    9. Failing to learn form our history could carry a heavy price tag for America.
    Very nice. Consider losing the crappy metaphor and substituting “could be costly.”

    10. Other countries revolutions’ have characteristics similar to the American Revolution.
    Nice but makes a fatal apostrophe error. (Wrong word!)

  12. kovnat77 says:

    1. In the great nation we call home, once stolen from savages, by savages, the past is all too important to ignore.
    (I find my own rewrite offensive, but I am getting stuck, so I can not waste my time on number 1….)
    Absolutely love the effort, Sammy.

    2. When a country puts forth too much effort into the battles of others, they leave their own county vulnerable.
    Mm-hmm. You’ve substituted an unnecessary if/then when/then construction for an unnecessary “By” phrase. Is your “country” singular or plural?

    3. If American chose to strengthen and solve its own problems, it would not only be beneficial for all Americans, but a powerful example for other nations as well.
    I don’t like if/thens, but this has a nice balance, Sammy, and a confident, unhurried pace.

    4. In order to establish our country and government, blood shed had to occur.
    Brilliant in many ways. I don’t like that bloodshed “occurs,” especially when you could so easily have said, “blood had to be shed.”

    5. (please eliminate this nonsensical statement.)
    Yes, we can cut that nonsense completely, though others have made impressive revisions.

    6. In democratic countries, it seems an uprising is unnecessary.
    Like it.

    7. After America won the revolution, the British vacated the colonies.
    They did, yes. To save British lives.

    8. By America putting its two cents into the revolutions of others, it does not put America in danger.
    No. This goes wrong immediately. Don’t ever start a sentence with “By noun participle.” You may begin: By putting its two cents in, America.

    9. By refusing to learn from the past, America will have to pay for the mistakes of their past as well as their future.
    Yes, just like that! By participle, noun. But clear out the wordiness at the end with the one word costly.

    10. The revolutions of others, mirror that of America’s.
    Near genius. I love the mirror. How about: The revolutions of others mirror America’s.

  13. billykluge says:

    1. The past is too important to ignore.
    I love brevity, Billy, but you’ve gutted the details. This fish won’t swim.

    2. Supporting foreign revolutions can damage our own country.
    Brilliant.

    3. Concentrating on our own concerns will strengthen our nation and lead other countries to do the same.
    Also brilliant.

    4. The worth of the deaths from the Revolutionary War is debatable.
    Near genius. I think it’s the value of the Revolution that the author questions. Still, brilliant of you to claim only that there is a debate.

    5. It isn’t necessarily true that political stress is created by changing in ruthless leaders.
    I really love everything except the odd “changing in ruthless leaders.”

    6. Democratic countries do not have reasons for any uprisings.
    Nice.

    7. The British vacated the colonies when the Americans won their revolution.
    True. To save British lives. Don’t gut.

    8. America will take little damage intervening in countries engaged in revolution.
    You have a unique approach, Billy.

    9. America being reluctant to learn from its history would bring a very heavy price to pay.
    May I suggest: “America’s reluctance” and “would be costly”?

    10. Other revolutions characteristics show similarities to the American Revolution.
    Sorry, no. The characteristics aren’t similar to the Revolution. Other revolutions’ characteristics are similar to the AR’s characteristics. Now improve on that comparison.

  14. lebano55 says:

    1. Founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land, our nation’s past is too difficult to ignore.
    I love it.

    2. Supporting foreign revolutions can result in damage to our own country.
    Nice. You could easily substitute “can damage our country.”

    3. Concentrating on our own concerns will make us a stronger nation, and countries that follow suit will experience similar results.
    Brilliant. Brevity isn’t always the best approach. This one needs space to breathe.

    4. The Revolutionary War may have established our country and government, but was the resulting bloodshed worthwhile?
    Good but please ALWAYS substitute bold positive claims for rhetorical questions.

    5.Political stress is often caused by changes in the ruling class.
    Very nice but incomplete.

    6.There should not be reason for an uprising in a democratic country.
    “should not be reason”? Maybe better: There should be no reason.

    7.The British vacated the American colonies rather than allowing more lives to be taken by war.
    That’s nice. You didn’t mention they had lost the war.

    8.Intervening in countries engaged in revolution will do little damage to America.
    Brilliant.

    9.The consequences for not learning from our past carry a heavy price tag.
    Good but lose the crappy metaphor. “from our past will be costly.”

    10. Many revolutions have similar characteristics to the American revolution.
    I really like it, but flip “similar” and “characteristics.”

  15. Rickc1030 says:

    1. Being founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land, the past of our great nation is too important to ignore.

    Nice, but lose the “Being” and it’s better.

    2. Damage will come to our own country if we keep supporting foreign revolutions.

    Beautiful sentence.

    3.If we concentrate on our own concerns to make us a stronger nation, other countries will hopefully follow the same suit.

    Good. Follow suit.

    4. Although the Revolutionary war established our country, was all the violence and bloodshed worth it?

    No. Eliminate the Rhetorical Question every time. The bloodshed was not worth it. Or it was. Don’t quibble.

    5. Just because the ruling class changes, it causes political stress and the belief that those who lead will tend to be ruthless, which isn’t necessarily true.

    Huh? Lose the “it.” Changes in the ruling class cause political stress is incomparably better.

    6. The fact that we are a democratic country means that we have a right to speech instead of needing to start a violent uprising.

    We have a right instead of needing? That’s weak. . . . means that we can speak instead of starting is way better.

    7. When the Americans won the revolution, the British vacated the colonies.

    Nice.

    8. America would suffer minimal amounts of damage for intruding on other countries in the midst of revolution.

    OK but why “amount of damage”? Why not: would suffer minimal damage?

    9. America’s reluctancy to learn from its past could bare a heavy price on its future.

    I like the brevity but 1) reluctancy isn’t a word; 2) bare is a misspelling of bear; 3) reluctance can’t bear a price; America might. Maybe you mean: America’s reluctance to learn from its past could be expensive.

    10. The American revolution’s influences can be seen as influences in other revolutions around the world.

    I see what you’re trying to do. But: influences can be seen as influences? Why not: The American revolution has influenced revolutions around the world?

  16. clarkn92 says:

    1. With our great nation being founded on the blood-soaked soil of another people’s land, the past cannot be ignored.
    2. Supporting foreign revolutions can result in damage to our country.
    3. By concentrating on our own concerns, we will become a stronger nation and other countries will follow the same suit.
    4. Was the Revolutionary War worth establishing our country and government?
    5. Changes done to the ruling class can cause political stress.
    6. There is no reason for an uprising in a democratic country.
    7. The British vacated the colonies instead of lives being taken by war when the Americans won their Revolution.
    8. Little damage will be done to America by intervening with countries who are engaged in revolution.
    9. If America is reluctant to learn from its history, there could be consequences.
    10. By looking at other revolutions, we can see the similarities with the American Revolution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s