March 5, 2021
The Chevalier
Hi everyone, I was practising for the writing section of the TOEFL exam, so I wondered if anyone would be willing to correct my writings about one of the activities in the practice test, thank you very much in advance. So without further ado:
"In the lecture, the professor explains the possible interpretations of the evidence historians have to support the things as told by the Chevalier in his memoir.
She begins by explaining the financial situation of the Chevalier, saying that he didn't always have money at hand to spend on gambling and such, mainly because in those days moving money took some time, especially for any kind of wealth obtained via selling properties and related activities. This would explain why he often borrowed money while waiting for his wealth to be available and ready to be used.
The second point argued by the professor states that some evidence suggests the Chevalier wrote everything he could remember from conversations with Voltaire, which was mainly done the same night they talked. So, by not waiting that much the Chevalier was probably able to successfully record the conversation with great detail.
Lastly, there is the issue of the prison escape, which, although doubted by many, presents itself as something doable in the first place. But the stronger pieces of evidence supporting his escape are as follows: on one hand, it is known that the Chevalier was kept in a prison where many other famous and powerful criminals were jailed. So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards then the Chevalier probably didn't do it as well, despite having friends working in politics and such. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting his escape as some records detail that the prison ceiling had to be repaired not long before the date he broke free. If we assume that prisons of the era needed seldom repairs then it's not hard to believe such an escape could be pulled off without any trouble."
The Chevalier
Hi everyone, I was practiscing for the writing section of the TOEFL exam, so I wondered if anyone would be willing to correct my writings about one of the activities in the practice test, t. Thank you very much in advance.
So without further ado:
"In the lecture, the professor explains the possible interpretations of the evidence historians have to support the things as told by the Chevalier in his memoir.
She begins by explaining the financial situation of the Chevalier, saying that he didn't always have money at hand to spend on gambling and such, mainly because in those days moving money took some time, especially for any kind of wealth obtained via selling properties and related activities.
This would explain why he often borrowed money while waiting for his wealth to be available and ready to be used.
The second point argued by the professor statewas that some evidence suggests the Chevalier wrote down everything he could remember from conversations with Voltaire, which was mainly doneing it the same night they talked.
So, by not waiting that much the Chevalier was probably able to successfully record the conversations with great detail.
Lastly, there is the issue of the prison escape, which, although doubted by many, presents itself as something doable in the first place.
But the stronger pieces of evidence supporting his escape areis as follows: on one hand, it is known that the Chevalier was kept in a prison where many other famous and powerful criminals were jailed.
"It is" is normally said/written as "it's".
So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards, then the Chevalier probably didn't do it as well, despite having friends working in politics and such.
On the other hand, there is evidence supporting his escape as some records detail that the prison ceiling had to be repaired not long before the date he broke free.
If we assume that prisons of the era needed seldomseldom needed repairs, then it's not hard to believe such an escape could be pulled off without any trouble.".
The quotation marks come before the period.
Feedback
Great Job! Just a few corrections!
Hi everyone, I was practising for the writing section of the TOEFL exam, so I wondered if anyone would be willing to correct my writings about one of the activities in the practice test,; thank you very much in advance.
So without further ado:
"In the lecture, the professor explains the possible interpretations of the evidence historians have to support the things as told by the Chevalier in his memoir.
She begins by explaining the financial situation of the Chevalier, saying that he didn't always have money at hand to spend on gambling and such, mainly because in those days moving money took some time, especially for any kind of wealth obtained via selling properties and related activities.
This would explain why he often borrowed money while waiting for his wealth to be available and ready to be used.
The second point argued by the professor stateis that some evidence suggests the Chevalier wrote everything he could remember from conversations with Voltaire, which was mainusually done the same night they talked.
The beginning that you wrote is not wrong but "argued by" and "states that" sound a bit unusual combined in this fashion
The "which was mainly done" is awkward as it is not referring to a noun, but to a verb ("wrote everything")
Also, "usually" is more commonly used in this situation, as it clearly describes frequency, whereas "mainly" can describe that the content is mostly as described.
So, by not waiting that much the Chevalier was probably was able to successfully record the conversatiosn with great detail.
What you wrote is not wrong, but "probably was able" sounds more natural here than "was probably able"
In your previous sentence you used "converations" in plural, so sounds better to maintain the plural here, I believe.
Lastly, there is the issue of the prison escape, which, although doubted by many, presents itself as something doable in the first place.
I don't really understand what "in the first place" means here.
So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards then the Chevalier probably dicouldn't do it as welleither, despite having friends working in politics and such.
Correcting to how a native would phrase it.
But there seems to be something wrong logically. This point is presented as the first point (on the one hand) of evidence supporting his escape, but in fact it appears to be evidence *against* his escape.
On the other hand, there is evidence supporting his escape as some records detail that the prison ceiling had to be repaired not long before the date he broke free.
If we assume that prisons of the era needed seldomseldom needed repairs then it's not hard to believe such an escape could be pulled off without any trouble."
March 5, 2021
Thanks for the corrections! Just to be clear for future readers, at the end of the first line of the prison escape paragraph I wrote "in the first place" in order to establish a clear contrast against the idea presented in the original paper talking about the Chevalier, which implied that getting out of that jail was basically impossible, ergo the Chevalier must've lied about it. But escaping from prison shouldn't be regarded as impossible, at best it is extremely difficult but doable, something the original paper didn't acknowledge. Maybe there is a better way to express this, but the main point is that we should acknowledge from the start that escaping from prison is possible, hence "in the first place".
As for the "So, if these powerful people..." paragraph, maybe it's hard to understand because I didn't include the original text that the lecture was trying to refute. Basically, the lecture argued that bribing was impossible, so those historians who didn't believe in the prison escape but argued in favor of the bribing theory must surely be wrong. Idk, there could be as well something wrong logically with all of this, but that's how it was presented in the lecture. Cheers!
March 5, 2021
Yes, the "one the first hand" part seems to argue against him having escaped, and yet is presented as one of the "stronger pieces of evidence supporting his escape", so that doesn't make sense here (to the reader without any more background)--it sounds like the writer got mixed up or something.
The "bribing theory" (*) might help explain it, but obviously it's not part of this submission, so I can't speak to it.
(*) By the way, "bribing theory" sounds odd--I think "bribery theory" would be more natural.
So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards then the Chevalier probably didn't do it as welleither, despite having friends working in politics and such.
"As well" doesn't sound quite as natural as "either" when it's used with a negative phrase. "Do it" sounds a little redundant. These are minor though, and the sentence is still very understandable.
If we assume that prisons of the era needed seldomseldom needed repairs then it's not hard to believe such an escape could be pulled off without any trouble."
I'm not sure of the grammatical reason, but to me it's a bit more natural to say "seldom needed repairs". Some other examples that I would consider more natural:
"seldom needed repairs"
"rarely needed repairs"
"infrequently needed repairs"
"needed infrequent repairs"
And possibly "needed repairs infrequently", but this doesn't sound as natural as the others.
March 5, 2021
Thank you very much! I wrote everything while on a timer so no wonder I made some grammatical errors. The feedback is much appreciated, I'll need to be as precise as possible on test day so
|
The Chevalier This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
Hi everyone, I was practising for the writing section of the TOEFL exam, so I wondered if anyone would be willing to correct my writings about one of the activities in the practice test, thank you very much in advance. Hi everyone, I was practising for the writing section of the TOEFL exam, so I wondered if anyone would be willing to correct my writings about one of the activities in the practice test Hi everyone, I was practi |
|
So without further ado: This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
"In the lecture, the professor explains the possible interpretations of the evidence historians have to support the things as told by the Chevalier in his memoir. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
She begins by explaining the financial situation of the Chevalier, saying that he didn't always have money at hand to spend on gambling and such, mainly because in those days moving money took some time, especially for any kind of wealth obtained via selling properties and related activities. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
This would explain why he often borrowed money while waiting for his wealth to be available and ready to be used. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
The second point argued by the professor states that some evidence suggests the Chevalier wrote everything he could remember from conversations with Voltaire, which was mainly done the same night they talked. The second point argued by the professor The beginning that you wrote is not wrong but "argued by" and "states that" sound a bit unusual combined in this fashion The "which was mainly done" is awkward as it is not referring to a noun, but to a verb ("wrote everything") Also, "usually" is more commonly used in this situation, as it clearly describes frequency, whereas "mainly" can describe that the content is mostly as described. The second point argued by the professor |
|
So, by not waiting that much the Chevalier was probably able to successfully record the conversation with great detail. So, by not waiting that much the Chevalier What you wrote is not wrong, but "probably was able" sounds more natural here than "was probably able" In your previous sentence you used "converations" in plural, so sounds better to maintain the plural here, I believe. So, by not waiting that much the Chevalier was probably able to successfully record the conversations with great detail. |
|
Lastly, there is the issue of the prison escape, which, although doubted by many, presents itself as something doable in the first place. Lastly, there is the issue of the prison escape, which, although doubted by many, presents itself as something doable in the first place. I don't really understand what "in the first place" means here. Lastly, there is the issue of the prison escape, which, although doubted by many, presents itself as something doable |
|
But the stronger pieces of evidence supporting his escape are as follows: on one hand, it is known that the Chevalier was kept in a prison where many other famous and powerful criminals were jailed. But the stronger pieces of evidence supporting his escape "It is" is normally said/written as "it's". |
|
So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards then the Chevalier probably didn't do it as well, despite having friends working in politics and such. So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards then the Chevalier probably didn't "As well" doesn't sound quite as natural as "either" when it's used with a negative phrase. "Do it" sounds a little redundant. These are minor though, and the sentence is still very understandable. So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards then the Chevalier probably Correcting to how a native would phrase it. But there seems to be something wrong logically. This point is presented as the first point (on the one hand) of evidence supporting his escape, but in fact it appears to be evidence *against* his escape. So, if these powerful people couldn't bribe the guards, then the Chevalier probably didn't do it as well, despite having friends working in politics and such. |
|
On the other hand, there is evidence supporting his escape as some records detail that the prison ceiling had to be repaired not long before the date he broke free. This sentence has been marked as perfect! This sentence has been marked as perfect! |
|
If we assume that prisons of the era needed seldom repairs then it's not hard to believe such an escape could be pulled off without any trouble." If we assume that prisons of the era I'm not sure of the grammatical reason, but to me it's a bit more natural to say "seldom needed repairs". Some other examples that I would consider more natural: "seldom needed repairs" "rarely needed repairs" "infrequently needed repairs" "needed infrequent repairs" And possibly "needed repairs infrequently", but this doesn't sound as natural as the others. If we assume that prisons of the era If we assume that prisons of the era The quotation marks come before the period. |
You need LangCorrect Premium to access this feature.
Go Premium