Anonymous ID: 5273e5 Aug. 9, 2020, 1:32 a.m. No.10230809   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>0811 >>0815

>>10230790

>present critical thought as argument

 

thats exactly what was presented to you

 

i did not criticizing the content

i criticized the grammatical style

 

you can not use so many I ME MY's when writing about a subject

 

nobody cares about YOU, it detracts from what you are trying to say

Anonymous ID: 5273e5 Aug. 9, 2020, 1:52 a.m. No.10230865   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1008 >>1033

>>10230834

weaker

>>10230717

imma help you since it bothered you so much, but now we're done

 

an over-reliance on the first-person pronoun reflects a deep psychological distortion of the actual world. In essence, it is a product of fear: constant self-reference is like a verbal tic, a habit born of the stress and trauma that derives from coming of age in the modern world.

 

Why you should avoid the use of โ€œIโ€ in a paper

 

Writing a paper without using the first pronoun may not only make your paper livelier but also give the reader the need to complete your essay. Whether it is a personal situation you are writing about, Writing without it may have a number of advantages. They areโ€

 

You will understand your positionโ€“ This will help the learners understand you are writing about yourself from your expressions.

Improves writing-Knowing how to avoid the use of โ€œIโ€ will boost the clarity of your work by forming clear sentences and phrases for your essay.

Improved thinkingโ€“ This will improve your thinking capabilities as you will be thinking more about creating correct vocabulary, grammar and correct sentences without having a different impact on yourself.

 

there is nothing wrong, in principle, with using the first-person pronoun in writing. It is only when โ€œIโ€ feels redundant or superfluous that it becomes a stylistic flaw, and a first-person perspective is often central to meaning. That said, observation is far more effective at conveying subjective perceptions than is the confessional mode. To borrow a phrase from Ernest Hemingway, skilled writers create detailed psychological portraits by โ€œput[ting] down what really happened in action.โ€ In contrast, an over-reliance upon โ€œIโ€ statements can result in prose that feels weak, noncommittal, and egocentric.

 

Consider the difference between each of these paired statements:

 

Example A

 

I was told there would be cake.

She said there would be cake.

Example B

 

I woke to the alarm but immediately switched it off. As a result, I was fired for being late for work.

While the alarm could wake me, it could not prevent me from hitting the snooze buttonโ€”a fateful decision, which cost me my job.

 

Example C

 

I think Twitter should suspend the presidentโ€™s account.

The presidentโ€™s Twitter account should be suspended.

In each example, both statements convey (more or less) equivalent meanings: cake is missing, folly reconsidered, censorship entertained. Yet in each case, the tone and emphasis are subtly shifted away from the speaker.

 

The first example becomes less diffident, more accusatory: it was she, that liar, who told me there would be cake. The second example builds narrative tension, as if to convey the speakerโ€™s disbelief at having let events slip from her control: how could my alarm have failed to perform its duty? The third removes a redundant qualification: of course the presidentโ€™s Twitter account should be suspended. This truth is self-evident, and need not be qualified; the fact that you think it, well, thatโ€™s implied by the fact of your assertion.