SKILLS CENTRE > IMCWF Skills Centre
How critical reviews of writings improve comprehension
Aafaque Ehsen:
How critical reviews of writings improve comprehension
I have made my living as a writer for more than four decades.
My years in advertising form the greater part of this unfinished innings.
I have also been involved in the training of creative writers for many years. Often my colleagues ask me “How to improve writing?” I always reply “Think, plan your piece, organize content in paragraphs, write, review, rethink, edit.”
A couple of weeks ago a friend pointed me to an Editorial in the Daily DAWN. My friend, rightly, found this editorial a bit confusing. He asked me if there is room for improvement.
There is always room for improvement.
I am reproducing here the original editorial, and a possible improved version.
--- Quote ---
Memogate and SC
http://epaper.dawn.com/Accessed 11:58 PM 3 Dec 2011
BY wading into the memogate scandal in a controversial manner, the Supreme Court has raised more than a few questions about the separation of powers, the supremacy of parliament and the law itself. Consider. A government whose ambassador to the US was dragged into scandal has returned to Pakistan, resigned from office and pledged to submit himself before a parliamentary inquiry that the prime minister himself has vowed will be carried out. That the matter, involving a memo delivered to the office of the then US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, is to be brought before parliament and not a handpicked investigation commission favourably disposed towards the government is highly relevant here. Thus far, the government does not appear to have taken any steps to shield one of its own from parliament or the court of public opinion. With the parliamentary wheels already in motion, what was the need for a parallel inquiry to be concluded `within three weeks` by a special investigator appointed by the SC? Would not the result of this inquiry, almost certain to be completed before parliament`s own probe, influence the minds of the members of the parliamentary commission?
There are more questions here. In ordering the inquiry, whatever the narrow legal point at stake, the court has lent credence to the theory that the memo, had it in fact been drafted at the behest of someone in the government, was ostensibly a criminal or illegal act that needs to be investigated. Is this necessarily so? However ill-advised the memo may have been, a close scrutiny of the six points it contains does not reveal any decisive `treasonous` material. The president is the constitutional supreme commander of the armed forces and the prime minister is the constitutional chief executive. In a court of law, all that should matter is whether they have the authority to take certain measures.
Moreover, given that no action whatsoever was taken on the basis of the memo — even the harshest critics of the government have not alleged this — a peculiar situation arises that an inquiry has been mandated by the SC to examine events that could have happened but in fact never did happen. Should such political conspiracies, whether real or fake, not be investigated by parliament, the highest political forum in Pakistan? In a country where the political divide is deepening and civil-military relations have worsened, the role of the SC as a neutral arbiter will be under intense scrutiny and we hope the court will take great care to avoid giving the impression that it is partisan in any way.
--- End quote ---
I am giving below the results of a scan of the above editorial by one of the finest writings tool available: The Bull Fighter.
According to The Bull Fighter Scan, the above document has a Bull Composite Index of 6.5. The average length of sentences in the editorial is 27.1 words. The average number of syllables per word used is 1.7. The Flesch readability score of this editorial is 38.
Diagnosis: Teetering on the edge of unclear. The overall meaning remains discernible, but it becomes possible to lose oneself in corollary thoughts, which may be worth exploration, but which can also detract from the core point of the written article.
Below is a revision of this editorial after the Bull Fighter Scan:
Memogate and SC (revised)
The Supreme Court’s order in the Memogate scandal gives rise to a new controversy instead of putting to rest an existing one. The order raises more than a few questions about the separation of powers, the supremacy of parliament and the law itself. Consider. A scandal surfaces about the Pakistan government’s ambassador to the US. The Ambassador returns to Pakistan and resigns from office. The prime minister vows that the parliament will conduct an inquiry into the matter. The ambassador pledges he will submit to the inquiry. It is highly relevant here that the matter before the honourable Supreme Court involves a memo delivered to the office of the then US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The parliament will examine the matter and not a handpicked investigation commission favourably disposed towards the government. Thus far, the government does not appear to have taken any steps to shield one of its own from parliament or the court of public opinion. The Parliament has already taken cognizance of the issue. So whence lies the need for a parallel inquiry to be concluded `within three weeks` by a special investigator appointed by the SC? It is almost certain that this parallel inquiry will be completed before the parliament`s own probe. Does not this raise the very likely possibility its findings will influence the minds of the members of the parliamentary commission?
There are more questions here. Whatever the narrow legal point at stake, the Court, by ordering the inquiry has lent credence to the theory that the memo, had it in fact been drafted at the behest of someone in the government, was ostensibly a criminal or illegal act that needs to be investigated. Is this necessarily so? However ill advised the memo may have been, a close look at the six points it contains does not reveal any decisive `treasonous` material. The president is the constitutional supreme commander of the armed forces. The prime minister is the constitutional chief executive. In a court of law, all that should matter is whether the authority to take certain measures resides with them.
There is more. Given that, no action whatsoever was taken because of the memo — even the harshest critics of the government have not alleged this — a peculiar situation arises. An inquiry has been mandated by the Supreme Court to examine events that could have happened but in fact never did happen. Should such political conspiracies, whether real or fake, not be investigated by parliament, the highest political forum in Pakistan? In a country where the political divide is deepening and the civil-military relations have worsened the role of the Supreme Court, as a neutral arbiter will be under intense scrutiny. We hope the court will take great care to avoid giving the impression that it is partisan in any way.
The results of The Bull Fighter Scan for the revision above:
The Composite Bull Index is 7.6 per cent. The average length of sentences in the revision is 17.4 words. The average number of syllables per word used is 1.7. The Flesch readability score of this revision is 48.
Diagnosis: Teetering on the edge of unclear. The overall meaning remains discernible, but it becomes possible to lose oneself in corollary thoughts, which may be worth exploration, but which can also detract from the core point of the written article.
What I did:
I shortened the length of sentences, by breaking up some sentences. These were sentences unnecessarily joined with conjunctions. I also changed the construction of a few sentences.
There are more words in the revision than in the original. This is because of the changes that were necessary.
What I did not do:
I did not change the overall organization of the piece. I did not change the meaning of any sentence. In the context of the editorial, the meaning remains as it is.
The overall Composite Bull Index of this topic is 7.6. This is also because of the original editorial and the revision, which make up a significant part of this submission.
EDIT: Removed a couple of formatting inconsistencies.
Beena:
Wow! what a difference between the two Flesch readability scores. Great work.
Xerxes:
^
Yes. A ten point gain in readability on 38 means an increase of over 26 percent.
Jacques:
--- Quote from: Aafaque Ehsen on December 21, 2011, 06:23:51 AM ---
How critical reviews of writings improve comprehension
. . .
Often my colleagues ask me “How to improve writing?” I always reply “Think, plan your piece, organize content in paragraphs, write, review, rethink, edit.”
--- End quote ---
This seems to be the ONLY way to keep sharpening ones skills.
Wrinkler_Simon:
Wonder how it would look if written by the topic starter from scratch
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version