grammar?

[VCH]

 

How much should I assume a reader already knows?

 

For instance, the two sentences below are alternate versions, but number 2 assumes that the reader knows that my entire paper is about determining if R. ondatrae (a wormy parasite) caused limb abnormalities in amphibians at Isobel Lake. I mean, the reader will obviously know that, but is sentence number two grammatically valid if I don't mention what the evidence suggests R. ondatrae did?

 

1. The final piece of evidence implicating R. ondatrae as the cause of limb abnormalities at Isobel Lake is . . .

 

vs.

 

 

2. The final piece of evidence implicating R. ondatrae is . . .

 

Thanks for any help, and if you need clarification, ask.

[Lilith]

don't get hung up on what's "grammatically valid"; just remember that professors read lots of papers while tired and/or drunk so the first sentence is probably a good idea for clarity's sake

[Randomizer]

The more people the paper is given to, then the fewer will actually read it.

 

For a dissertation defense, the only professor that read it was the advisor. One panel member snored through the oral presentation.

[nikki.]

And, as an added bonus, the first one slightly inflates your word count!

[Harehunter]

I would have to go with your first statement. It may appear to be a bit wordy on the surface, but it makes a much clearer statement.

[Sarachim]

My rule of thumb is to say everything at least once. I'd use the long version the first time and the short version every time thereafter.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

it all depends on how much i have to write

[Alorael at Large]

If it's the final piece of evidence, you've presumably built a case linking R. ondatrae to limb abnormalities. You might want to steer clear of the first sentence just to avoid being painfully redundant.

 

—Alorael, who can't really judge sentences like that in a vacuum. But no, he won't read your paper.

[Student of Trinity]

I would also go with the first version.

 

I'd bet few professors actually read scientific papers while drunk or tired, if for no other reason than that being drunk or tired normally lowers your motivation to read scientific papers. But many researchers at all levels read papers quickly, and would like to get the essentially message as fast as possible. That does not necessarily mean they want to read fewer words — reading speed is rarely the bottleneck in the process.

 

The bottleneck is hitting paragraphs (or figures or equations) that don't immediately make sense, because this forces you to flip back through the paper, or re-write it for yourself on the spot, in order to figure out what the dang thing means. The paper that readers will love is one that they can barrel straight through and still get the gist, even if they're going too fast to pick up a totally clear picture from the beginning of exactly what you're doing. So you really do want to keep reminding the reader what you're doing, or at least include lots of cues that will help them clue in if their eyes have moved a few pages ahead of their brains.

 

In your case, I'd bet that a not insignificant fraction of your paper's eventual readership will not have 'amphibian limb abnormalities' fully focused in their minds at the time they hit this sentence. The half-second they spend reading that little reminder will keep them on track, and they'll be grateful.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

nothing like amphibian limb abnormalities to spice up a conversation. try it by dinner

 

or on a date

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I would also go with the first version.

I'd bet few professors actually read scientific papers while drunk or tired, if for no other reason than that being drunk or tired normally lowers your motivation to read scientific papers.

There's nothing I love more than downing a dozen Jell-O shots and reading through dense research papers on arcane subdiciplines of biophysics. It's fun for the whole family!

[Callie]

Ewww Jell-O shots...nothing like swallowing a burning gelatinous substance.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Ewww Jell-O shots...nothing like swallowing a burning gelatinous substance.

It's a good way of adding sugar to crap vodka to make it palatable if you lack access to a charcoal filter. Did it in college all the time.

[Callie]

That's the problem: crap vodka gives me a headache regardless of how much sugar is in it. Vodka has to be of Smirnoff quality or higher for me to drink it.

 

You can tell I'm kind of picky.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

That's the problem: crap vodka gives me a headache regardless of how much sugar is in it. Vodka has to be of Smirnoff quality or higher for me to drink it.

You can tell I'm kind of picky.

Personally, it says more about your taste that you think Smirnoff is high-quality vodka than that you refuse to drink vodka below a certain quality level.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Personally, it says more about your taste that you think Smirnoff is high-quality vodka than that you refuse to drink vodka below a certain quality level.

Excalibur didn't say it was high quality, just that it was the cut-off point between drinkable and non-drinkable. (And to be fair, he said he was only "kind of" picky.)

Dikiyoba.

[Callie]

I don't think I've had any vodka that's considered to be high quality. The problem is that the only way I can legally drink is if my parents give it me, so meh.

[Cairo Jim]

Vodka is my definition of hangover. I'm not really that in to it anyways.

[nikki.]

Russian Standard is high quality? I mean, I know I don't drink vodka, but it isn't that much more expensive than other kinds.

[Callie]

Not high quality, drinkable quality.

[Rowen]

The only drinkable vodka that I've had was when I was doing body shots at a party. And that only happened after we drank a bottle of Patrón Añejo. Later that week I tried vodka before drinking other alcohol to take off the edge and decided to not drink for the rest of the night. That stuff is beyond nasty.

[Alorael at Large]

Vodka is pretty much 20% alcohol by volume in water. It doesn't taste like much of anything, and the less it has a taste the better it is! I find this mystifying. I could make something like it myself (for free, if I pilfered lab ethanol stocks a bit), and it would still be unpalatable as a beverage on its own. Vodka in a cocktail, sure. But drinking vodka has just never made sense to me. If I'm going to drink something, I want it to taste good. Water is included, with or without the diminutive.

 

—Alorael, whose typical tastes run to skribbane, good beer, and bad wine. And he'll add that infusing vodka at home can be fun and delicious, although it can also be amusingly disgusting.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Reality Clamp

Vodka is pretty much 20% alcohol by volume in water. It doesn't taste like much of anything, and the less it has a taste the better it is! I find this mystifying. I could make something like it myself (for free, if I pilfered lab ethanol stocks a bit), and it would still be unpalatable as a beverage on its own. Vodka in a cocktail, sure. But drinking vodka has just never made sense to me. If I'm going to drink something, I want it to taste good. Water is included, with or without the diminutive.

—Alorael, whose typical tastes run to skribbane, good beer, and bad wine. And he'll add that infusing vodka at home can be fun and delicious, although it can also be amusingly disgusting.

40 proof vodka is some pretty weak vodka. It's usually 80 proof (40% alcohol) or 100 proof (50% alcohol).

[Alorael at Large]

Whoops, yes. Actually, it's legally required to be no lower than about 37% in the EU and USA.

 

—Alorael, who lays the praise and blame for that at Mendeleev's feet. Still, few other spirits can claim to be designed by science!

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

Not high quality, drinkable quality.

I was referring to this:

Quote:

Edited by Dantius (Today at 02:06 AM)
Edit Reason: It's mid-range at best. Refusing to drink anything below serious high quality vodkas like Chopin or Stoli Elit or Russian Standard would be a different thing entirely.

Sorry.

[VCH]

I guess my main issue is that every writing guide on biology states that ones writing should be brief and concise, sort of along the lines of Strunk and Whites "Omit needless words". So I've been trying to cut words wherever possible. And I do agree that long papers suck, a lot.

 

But overall I'm pretty terrible with knowing the official rules of English so this formal writing thing is a pain.

 

Oh and Alorael, because you didn't ask for it, here's the first paragraph of the discussion section. You know you wanna . . .

 

And, speaking of limb abnormalities:

 

 

 

 

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) and Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) populations at Isobel lake had seasonal abnormality frequencies that were much greater than what is expected for amphibian populations. What is more, 4 lines of evidence suggest that these elevated abnormality levels were caused by the trematode Ribeiroia ondatrae.

 

First, greater than 98% of all abnormalities affected the hind limbs. Correspondingly, the vast majority of R. ondatrae metacercariae were found in this area. Thus, there was a correlation between the location of metacercariae and the location of limb abnormalities. This pattern is not uniques to this study; it has been observed in numerous field studies and lab experiments (Johnson et al. 1999, 2001, 2002; Kiesecker 2002). Second, mean infection intensities among Pacific chorus frog and Columbia spotted frog metamorphs were within the range known to cause high abnormality frequencies in the lab (Johnson et al. 1999, 2001; Schotthoefer et al. 2003). For example, Johnson et al. (1999) exposed P. regilla larvae to 16 R. ondatrae cercariae, out of those larvae that survived to metamorphosis, 70% had abnormalities. Third, Columbia spotted frogs had a higher abnormality frequency, and were more heavily infected with R. ondatrae metacercariae, than Pacific chorus frogs. Thus, heavier infection levels appear to have caused higher abnormality levels (i.e. abnormality levels were dose-dependent). Again, this pattern is not unique to this study; it has been observed for nearly all species exposed to R. ondatrae in the lab (Johnson et al. 2010). And furthermore, field data from the western USA shows that sites with the highest mean infection intensities among metamorphs, have the highest abnormality frequencies (Johnson et al. 2002; Johnson and Chase 2004). The final piece of evidence implicating R. ondatrae is . . .

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Alorael

It doesn't taste like much of anything, and the less it has a taste the better it is! I find this mystifying. I could make something like it myself (for free, if I pilfered lab ethanol stocks a bit), and it would still be unpalatable as a beverage on its own. Vodka in a cocktail, sure.

We had a problem with ethanol pilfering at my university. The staff solved the problem by denaturing it with phenolphthalein.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

that should work

[Alorael at Large]

Most lab ethanol is already denatured because it's cheaper that way. For some uses, though, you really need pure ethanol.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't actually pilfer. For one thing, that ethanol is expensive. For another, while he knows it's still supposed to be 100% ethanol, he always worries about those trace contaminations during pipetting with horrible, horrible things.

[A less presumptuous name.]

I doubt my high school has non-denatured ethanol. On a semi-related note, I've actually seen ethanol-based rubbing alcohol. I was surprised by this, and I wonder if anyone else has seen it and if it's common.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Master1

I doubt my high school has non-denatured ethanol. On a semi-related note, I've actually seen ethanol-based rubbing alcohol. I was surprised by this, and I wonder if anyone else has seen it and if it's common.

I was under the impression that rubbing alcohol was by definition isopropyl alcohol.

[Callie]

Ethyl alcohol can also be used as rubbing alcohol.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Master1

I doubt my high school has non-denatured ethanol. On a semi-related note, I've actually seen ethanol-based rubbing alcohol. I was surprised by this, and I wonder if anyone else has seen it and if it's common.

I was under the impression that rubbing alcohol was by definition isopropyl alcohol.

I was under the same impression, which is why I was surprised enough to mention it here. Of course, when I looked the bottle said that the alcohol was denatured (I think with methanol).

[Alorael at Large]

Usually it's acetone.

 

—Alorael, who was surprised by just how denatured denatured alcohol is. It can be around 10% denaturant.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Only stings a little

Most lab ethanol is already denatured because it's cheaper that way. For some uses, though, you really need pure ethanol.

—Alorael, who doesn't actually pilfer. For one thing, that ethanol is expensive. For another, while he knows it's still supposed to be 100% ethanol, he always worries about those trace contaminations during pipetting with horrible, horrible things.

I'm surprised they don't make it themselves. It's extremely cheap if you know how.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Suddenly, you encounter

Usually it's acetone.

—Alorael, who was surprised by just how denatured denatured alcohol is. It can be around 10% denaturant.

I guess it is just de-nature of de business.