Scientific Writing, HRP 214

1. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Bob and I were very fond of the piece. B. Bob and me were very fond of the piece.

2. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Bob and I were very fond of the piece. B. Bob and me were very fond of the piece.

3. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. That man and I were talking. B. That man and me were talking.

4. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. That man and I were talking. B. That man and me were talking.

5. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Their data was intriguing. B. Their data were intriguing.

6. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Their data was intriguing. B. Their data were intriguing.

7. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. She told Bob and me that the end was near. B. She told Bob and I that the end was near.

8. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. She told Bob and me that the end was near. B. She told Bob and I that the end was near.

9. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. I hope that she and I will reconcile. B. I hope that she and me will reconcile.

10. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. I hope that she and I will reconcile. B. I hope that she and me will reconcile.

11. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Between you and I, we should have it done in no time. B.Between you and me, we should have it done in no time.

12. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Between you and I, we should have it done in no time. B. Between you and me, we should have it done in no time.

13. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. He looks like Bill Clinton. B. He looks as Bill Clinton.

14. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. He looks like Bill Clinton. B. He looks as Bill Clinton.

15. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Her dresses weren’t worth very much compared with her shoes. B. Her dresses weren’t worth very much compared to her shoes.

16. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Her dresses weren’t worth very much compared with her shoes. B.Her dresses weren’t worth very much compared to her shoes. mnemonic: when things are inherently similar, they are generally grouped with each other  Your scientific studies will more commonly be seeking distinctions among things previously understood to be similar (than similarities among inherently different things)

17. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. To whom did you betray my secret? B.To who did you betray my secret?

18. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. To whom did you betray my secret? B.To who did you betray my secret?

19. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Who owns that mean dog? B.Whom owns that mean dog?

20. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Who owns that mean dog? B.Whom owns that mean dog?

21. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. The person about who you speak is a fool. B. The person about whom you speak is a fool.

22. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. The person about who you speak is a fool. B. The person about whom you speak is a fool.

23. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. People whom live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. B. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

24. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. People whom live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. B. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

25. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. It’s my head on the line. B. Its my head on the line.

26. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. It’s my head on the line. B. Its my head on the line.

27. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Its head was on the chopping block. B. It’s head was on the chopping block.

28. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Its head was on the chopping block. B. It’s head was on the chopping block.

29. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Virgil is the candidate who we hope to elect. B. Virgil is the candidate whom we hope to elect.

30. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Virgil is the candidate who we hope to elect. B. Virgil is the candidate whom we hope to elect.

31. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Your cigarette tastes good, like a cigarette should. B. Your cigarette tastes good, as a cigarette should.

32. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Your cigarette tastes good, like a cigarette should. B. Your cigarette tastes good, as a cigarette should.

33. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Over 30 disease states can result in the clinical characteristics of dementia. B. More than 30 disease states can result in the clinical characteristics of dementia.

34. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Over 30 disease states can result in the clinical characteristics of dementia. B. More than 30 disease states can result in the clinical characteristics of dementia.

35. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Fewer men are in the class than women. B. Less men are in the class than women.

36. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Fewer men are in the class than women. B. Less men are in the class than women.

37. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Fewer restrictive measures are needed. B. Less restrictive measures are needed.

38. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Juan Zabala is a twenty-nine-year-old Mexican whom the San Francisco police charged with breaking into a 1991 Honda Accord. B. Juan Zabala is a twenty-nine-year-old Mexican who the San Francisco police charged with breaking into a 1991 Honda Accord.

39. Scientific Writing, HRP 214 A. Juan Zabala is a twenty-nine-year-old Mexican whom the San Francisco police charged with breaking into a 1991 Honda Accord. B. Juan Zabala is a twenty-nine-year-old Mexican who the San Francisco police charged with breaking into a 1991 Honda Accord.

40. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS 1. There are a number of known causes of epilepsy. However, epilepsy with a definite antecedent neurologic insult that is presumed to be causal applies to only about one-third of all cases of epilepsy. The remaining two-thirds are idiopathic/cryptogenic.

41. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS Possible rewrite… • Epilepsy is caused by a known neurologic insult in about one-third of cases; the remainder are idiopathic/cryptogenic.

42. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS 2. There are difficulties in applying the syndrome classification to population-based studies. First, the necessary information may not be available. Second, syndromes are, in part, classified by prognosis, and therefore not applicable to incidence cases. Third, a large proportion of population-based cases may not fit. A system incorporating the syndrome classification as reasonably as possible into population-based studies is needed.

43. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS Possible rewrite… 2. The current syndrome classification system is inadequate in several respects: the necessary information is not always available; syndromes are, in part, classified by prognosis, and therefore not applicable to incident cases; and a large proportion of population-based cases don’t fit.

44. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS 3. The two results are found to be in agreement.

45. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS Possible rewrite… 3. The two results agree.

46. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS 4. There is enormous variety of clinical presentation, as symptoms vary depending on the tumors’ location, size, and malignant versus benign behavior.

47. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS Possible rewrite… 4. Clinical presentation varies widely depending on a tumor’s location and size, and whether it is malignant or benign.

48. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS 5. Biostatistics can be a lot of fun because of the multidisciplinary team approach. In one project we have a nutritionist, a psychologist, statisticians, a computer specialist, and dietitians: a whole range of specialties. When we all get together, everyone has a perspective to bring to the problem.

49. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS Possible rewrite… 5. Our enjoyable multidisciplinary approach to biostatistics brings together nutritionists, psychologists, statisticians, computer engineers, and dietitians—each of whom adds a different perspective to the problem.

50. Scientific Writing, HRP 214HOMEWORK ANSWERS 6. The high-dissonance participants were paid a small sum of money while being given a free choice of whether to participate, whereas the participants we randomly assigned to the large-incentive treatment (the low-dissonance condition) were not offered the opportunity to refuse.