Enzymatically, I don’t know what metalanguage is but having read your extract I think I can see what your teacher was getting at. Will those paragraph breaks ever be accepted as valid?

I want to get back to my point about my writing. What should I write about with an outline? You write down any thoughts for future reference but don’t attempt to write a polished prose at this stage. Brainstorm then how those ideas fit into a logical structure that will help the reader see all while simultaneously seeing the individual ideas. A way to do that is to present the ideas as answers to questions in the reader’s mind, questions that you have put there. If you were an actor or a filmmaker, you are saying “What is the main idea conveyed by the extract from Whispering Death”? How do you answer an answer in the reader’s mind?

What are the things to give your reason for why you should not give your reason? How can I provide evidence for this reason.? In simple terms, if I am going to follow a line of thought, then I can clearly illustrate the point of my example, then give a quote. It is probably easier for a person to explain to myself why I chose that quotation.

When you have thought through the logic of what you want to say, what do you write in prose?

What is the best way to write with your reader in mind throughout, be clear what you wish the reader to get from what you write, and structure your writing in a way that is consistent with the reader’s naturally occurring questions, questions that you can guide the reader to be

asking.

Enzymatically, I don’t know what metalanguage is but having read your extract I think I can see what your teacher was getting at. Will those paragraph breaks ever be accepted as valid?

I want to get back to my point about my writing. What should I write about with an outline? You write down any thoughts for future reference but don’t attempt to write a polished prose at this stage. Brainstorm then how those ideas fit into a logical structure that will help the reader see all while simultaneously seeing the individual ideas. A way to do that is to present the ideas as answers to questions in the reader’s mind, questions that you have put there. If you were an actor or a filmmaker, you are saying “What is the main idea conveyed by the extract from Whispering Death”? How do you answer an answer in the reader’s mind?

What are the things to give your reason for why you should not give your reason? How can I provide evidence for this reason.? In simple terms, if I am going to follow a line of thought, then I can clearly illustrate the point of my example, then give a quote. It is probably easier for a person to explain to myself why I chose that quotation.

When you have thought through the logic of what you want to say, what do you write in prose?

What is the best way to write with your reader in mind throughout, be clear what you wish the reader to get from what you write, and structure your writing in a way that is consistent with the reader’s naturally occurring questions, questions that you can guide the reader to be

asking.

I have to read this several times to understand it at all. In this context beleaguered is a past participle acting s an adjective. At the beginning of the Third World War, the Soviet Union’s army was in a very difficult position. Worse: Pakistan has been defeated and had to surrender. What is the strategy of total settlement of tribes on the way? Isn’t it Alexander’s army that conquered Russia?

But despite these problems of the meaning of the sentence, the grammar of beleaguered is the same as if you put your clothes in the painted cupboard, or if you come in from the storm looking like a drowned rat. The army was beleaguered “The Army that could not

keep the peace”.

I have to read this several times to understand it at all. In this context beleaguered is a past participle acting s an adjective. At the beginning of the Third World War, the Soviet Union’s army was in a very difficult position. Worse: Pakistan has been defeated and had to surrender. What is the strategy of total settlement of tribes on the way? Isn’t it Alexander’s army that conquered Russia?

But despite these problems of the meaning of the sentence, the grammar of beleaguered is the same as if you put your clothes in the painted cupboard, or if you come in from the storm looking like a drowned rat. The army was beleaguered “The Army that could not

keep the peace”.

How was Secretary of State as of 2003?

In the UK, the title of MP has been progressively downgraded over the past 70 years or so. At one time almost all the major departments were run by Ministers (eg the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture) but over time the allure of the title Secretary of State has grown so that almost all government departments are in the charge of a Secretary of State under whom various other junior politicians have the title of Minister.

I think the issue here is not grammar either. Are the titles of newspaper or books an irrelevant symbol for a book or a paper? Personally, I find that the second is clear, and keeps me waiting too long for the punchline. The reader needs to be able to see quickly what the subject matter is. In the first one it is there in the first four words. In the second the reader has to wait until the tenth word to find the key “dynamics”.

I think the issue here is not grammar either. Are the titles of newspaper or books an irrelevant symbol for a book or a paper? Personally, I find that the second is clear, and keeps me waiting too long for the punchline. The reader needs to be able to see quickly what the subject matter is. In the first one it is there in the first four words. In the second the reader has to wait until the tenth word to find the key “dynamics”.

I think the issue here is not grammar either. Are the titles of newspaper or books an irrelevant symbol for a book or a paper? Personally, I find that the second is clear, and keeps me waiting too long for the punchline. The reader needs to be able to see quickly what the subject matter is. In the first one it is there in the first four words. In the second the reader has to wait until the tenth word to find the key “dynamics”.

I think the issue here is not grammar either. Are the titles of newspaper or books an irrelevant symbol for a book or a paper? Personally, I find that the second is clear, and keeps me waiting too long for the punchline. The reader needs to be able to see quickly what the subject matter is. In the first one it is there in the first four words. In the second the reader has to wait until the tenth word to find the key “dynamics”.

I think the issue here is not grammar either. Are the titles of newspaper or books an irrelevant symbol for a book or a paper? Personally, I find that the second is clear, and keeps me waiting too long for the punchline. The reader needs to be able to see quickly what the subject matter is. In the first one it is there in the first four words. In the second the reader has to wait until the tenth word to find the key “dynamics”.