Title: Default for Article 2: Exercise
Course: Applied English for Science and Technology

Q: Page 1, ABSTRACT
The integration of decision science into design techniques in Engineering and Engineering Technology programs is necessary to provide graduating engineers the necessary skills to become more immediate contributors to the goals and profits of their chosen companies.
- No problem at all.
- I think one preposition is missing.
- This is too long for an "abstract".
A: I think one preposition is missing.
Feedback: to provide SOMEONE with SOMETHING

Q: Page 1, I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
How do you get the most rigidity for the least cost and, in many cases, at the lowest weight? That is to say, “the most bang for your buck.”
- This is not suitable for an academic paper.
- The second "sentence" is not a sentence at all.
- I love this man's style. I can't see what is wrong with it!
A: This is not suitable for an academic paper.
Feedback: Do not ask direct questions in academic writing! Another question appears on page 5 (highlighted). By the way, “the most bang for your buck” is colloquial but there is no problem with it because it is given between quotation marks.

Q: Page 1, II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
A. Definitions and Scope
- Let me guess .... there is no "B"?
- Can it be that the title does not reflect the content?
- I still insist that this man's style is wonderful!
A: Let me guess .... there is no "B"?
Feedback: That is right! And this is not the only place where this mistake occurs. See "A. Decision Matrix" on page 6.

Q: Page 3, A. Integration of Shape Effect
Thus, both steel and aluminum are very similar if looking only at the amount of stiffness per pound of weight, not considering the shape of the cross section.
- "Pound" should be "kilo"? But he is American!
- We need a "not only ... but also" structure.
- Both steel and aluminium are looking at something.
A: Both steel and aluminium are looking at something.
Feedback: When we use a gerund structure after “if”, “when”, “while”, etc., there CAN be only one subject in the sentence.

Q: Page 4
Bar A is significantly more rigid (16 times!) than bar B.
- The author made a miscalculation.
- The phrase in brackets has no place here.
- If I were the author, I would use something like this: (16 times!!!)
A: The phrase in brackets has no place here.
Feedback: The finding can be surprising or even appalling; yet, we cannot use exclamation marks in academic writing to indicate this. The same use appears on top of page 5 (highlighted).

Q: Page 4
Intuitively, envision a 50.8 mm x 203.2 mm (2" x 8") piece of dimension lumber.
- This one is easy! No "order" or "request" in a scientific paper!
- Why are you always trying to find mistakes in his paper? He is a good man!
- He uses "intuitively" too much.
A: This one is easy! No "order" or "request" in a scientific paper!
Feedback: That is right; “envision …” is a direct request/command. Similarly, there are two more sentences like this one (highlighted) on the same page, and on page 5 (highlighted).

Q: Page 5, (3) Rearrangement of (2)
Thus, an aluminum I-beam has greater rigidity than the steel bar and weighs 12.81 kg (28.23 lbs) less!
- Once again, the exclamation mark is unnecessary.
- The comparison is not clear at all.
- This sentence looks totally correct.
A: Once again, the exclamation mark is unnecessary.

Q: Page 5, C. Integration of Cost Factor
Cost will be the next consideration. This must be introduced in almost all comparative design processes. This is the part missed in many typical courses.
- Which part?
- "Missed" should be "missing".
- Which courses?
A: Which courses?
Feedback: Do not use terms that will lead to ambiguity. Example? A British parliament said, during a parliament session, “Half of this parliament is stupid!” When he was asked to correct his statement, he said, “I apologize. Half of this parliament is not stupid.”

Q: Page 5, C. Integration of Cost Factor
So on an actual cost basis, the aluminum I-beam is less expensive, significantly lighter weight, and more rigid.
- NOW there is faulty comparison!
- It is not a good idea to start a sentence with "so".
A: It is not a good idea to start a sentence with "so".
Feedback: That is right.

Q: Page 6

- Use the above five Rating Factors to rate each Design Criteria for each of the Design Alternatives.
- Multiply each Rating Factor by each of the weighting factors and obtain a value for each Design Alternative.
- Finally, the best design alternative is determined by summing the respective Value
- Columns within the decision matrix. The column with the highest sum is the best choice.
- This one is obvious. The listing is totally wrong.
- The "full stop" is missing at the end of the sentence.
A: This one is obvious. The listing is totally wrong.
Feedback: When you make a list like this, make sure that there is uniformity. For example: 1. Phrase 2. Phrase 3. Phrase. Also, most probably, the author added a line break after “Value” by mistake and divided a long sentence.

Q: Page 7, V. CONCLUSIONS
In most cases, companies are looking for an sufficient design that is the lowest cost or the lightest weight.
- The choice of tense is wrong.
- There is a spelling mistake.
- The superlative structure is confusing.
A: There is a spelling mistake.
Feedback: a sufficient design

Q: Page 7, V. CONCLUSIONS
In many situations, it is possible [to satisfy both conditions (the low cost and lightest weight)] as shown in the example above.
- The meaning is hard to grasp due to the brackets.
- We use "the above example", not "the example above".
- The author does not explain "which" situations.
A: The meaning is hard to grasp due to the brackets.
Feedback: Actually, the square brackets should be deleted. Also, the correct use is: ( … […] …).

Q: Page 7
Gary is a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Ohio.
- You mean, Mr. Drigel? (That is right.)
- Are there "unregistered" engineers, too?
- This piece of information is not necessary here.
A: You mean, Mr. Drigel?