Title : How NOT To Write A Blog Comment
link : How NOT To Write A Blog Comment
How NOT To Write A Blog Comment
This post could be put under the banner of educational, mainly for the benefit of anyone who wishes to render a comment expressing a point of view in response to a post. In this case the comment in question is in response to an August 11, 2013 post regarding Mensa ceasing to use the SAT (and other tests) for entry because they were no longer deemed aptitude tests but achievement.The commenter's first problem is posting with no profile, as "Unknown" which undermines the cogency of his or her POV from the outset. Despite that, I am ok with posting an unknown's (no profile) comment but do expect the person to then make the case and with such clarity there is no wiggle room for misinterpretation. But this was not done. Below I give the comment and my criticisms of each section, which others may want to note for future reference:
----------------
Am I the only one who's even looked up the changes? In case you haven't, here's what they did to make it test "exclusively what has been taught in school:"
-Removed antonyms (because they relied too much on prior knowledge)
-Changed the number of verbal questions from 85 to 78
-Replaced the TSWE with two 15-minute math and verbal sections at the end of the test
-Added ten "open-response" math problems
-Allowed calculators for the math sections
-Increased the amount of reading comprehension questions to compose ~50% of the verbal.
-----------
The set up, intro is all wrong. As if the writer was never taught how to make his or her case in representing clear point of view. Instead of initiating the comment with a clear position he immediately asks a question about "looking up the changes" to the SAT. This makes one suspect that the topic or argument concerns the changes, which are then stated.
But where is it all leading?
The writer goes on:
As you can see, that totally makes the SAT cover absolutely NOTHING but learned material. Literally just learned material.
Actually, we don't know that because no case has been made that these changes constitute only "learned material". The reader is expected to just assume they do, i.e. removing antonyms because "they rely too much on prior knowledge". How so? He has not explained. In what way do they do this and for what kind of prior knowledge.
More to come:
Oh, and with the ACT?
-Recentered the English and Math scores
-Replaced the SOCIAL STUDIES and NATURAL SCIENCES sections with general reading and scientific reasoning sections.
-Made the English less grammar-based and put more emphasis on writing skills (once again changing it to exclusively learn-able stuff)
You know, you cannot learn the causes fall of the Roman Empire, or scientific facts.
Remember in history class, when before tests the teacher told you that he didn't actually teach anything and it was all up to your innate mental abilities to know about events such as the Dark Ages and the Incans? Studying history is completely pointless.
--------------------------
Here s/he jumps completely from the basis of the English part of the ACT to history ("causes of the fall of the Roman Empire") and "scientific facts" - which we are informed "you cannot learn".. Again, no explanation of why? The diversion itself is distracting and displays lack of coherent thought or argument. The "unknown" would have done better to make the case why the changes in the ACT he lists were off base, but doesn't. We are just dragged along in this nebulous aside and with no idea what the central point is.
Then there's the further diversion to history class, and the rapid conclusion "it's completely pointless" - again, without making a clear, cogent case for claiming this.
Then we see this:
And what's even philosophical about changing a test from aptitude to achievement? "We need to sound smart."
At this point the person has me scratching my head. Is he with Mensa's change or against it? He seems to be with it, in asking why the change from aptitude to achievement, but it is not clear again because his argumentation and presentation is too incoherent.
Lastly, we read:
And when changing it, the College Board actually said that the SAT was never supposed to be something unable to be learned. They said they were making it better-aligned with school material. Therefore, the pre-1994 tests are also 100% achievement-based because they said so. After-all, corporations never lie.
TL;DR: No one in Mensa even bothered to look up the content changes.
----------------
In my response to his remarks I agreed with his take about the College Board in the top paragraph, but not with his take in his last line.
How does he KNOW Mensa "never bothered to look up the content changes"? He makes the statement baldly without any evidence, only assuming such because my original post did not mention any particulars. But Dr. Salny did make it clear in the Mensa Research journal that this was done and he showed the parameters considered. Just because "Unknown" didn't see it in my post doesn't mean it wasn't done.
I pointed out that Mensa had indeed done its duty in regard to the initial content changes of the SAT, which is why they ceased classifying it as an aptitude test. But Mensa did not keep track of content changes to achievement tests thereafter. Why would they have?
A snarky reply was offered: "Let me just say that you're lucky the SAT didn't have many reading comprehension questions back in the day. "
To which I responded:
Actually, I don't believe I am the one with the reading comprehension issues. I believe it is you, Mr. Or Miss "Unknown". Part of the problem is also your vague writing, in being unable to make a strong and coherent argument. Is your primary case or issue with looking up the changes, or the changes themselves? Are you trying to argue that aptitude tests don't really make the cut any more than achievement tests? Or are you just arguing that Mensa failed to take each into account?
Try to focus your mind more and present a case for or against whatever it is you are arguing - pro or con. You presented the stats applicable to the changes, now make the argument and form a solid conclusion with a minimum of distracted prose and nebulosity.
All of which is substantiated by my preceding criticisms.
The takeaway here is if you have a comment to make which is concerning a post, and are representing a specific point of view in response, then you are obliged to make that POV clear. The comment in question did not, but we shall hope that at least something in the way of more coherent writing is learned from it.
Thus Article How NOT To Write A Blog Comment
That's an article How NOT To Write A Blog Comment This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article How NOT To Write A Blog Comment with the link address https://updated-1news.blogspot.com/2017/08/how-not-to-write-blog-comment.html
0 Response to "How NOT To Write A Blog Comment"
Post a Comment