Passive/Active Voice

Passive and Active Voice Exercises

Answers to http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/reading/exercises/dogqz.htm exercise:

1. Joanne was delayed when leaving the office by a client.



2. A meeting was being held at 6:30 by the tennis club.



3. Sheba, the dog, was blocking the door.



4. Sheba was taken by Joanne to the doctor.



5. The vet was worried by her condition.



6. Joanne went home while the vet treated the dog.



7. Joanne was told by the vet to get out of the house.



8. Joanne was confused by the telephone call.



9. The burglar was captured by police.



10. His fingers were bitten off by the dog.





When finished correct these sentences, without the check option:Level 1: Directions: Change the sentences below to the passive voice.

1. Children cannot open these bottles easily.


2. The government built a road right outside her front door.


3. Mr. Ross broke the antique vase as he walked through the store.


4. When she arrived, the changes amazed her.


5. The construction workers are making street repairs all month long.


6. The party will celebrate his retirement.


7. His professors were discussing his oral exam right in front of him.


8. My son ate all the homemade cookies.


9. Corrosion had damaged the hull of the ship.


10. Some children were visiting the old homestead while I was there.

Answers:

1. The bottles cannot be opened easily by the children.
2. A road was built right outside her front door by the government.
3. The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store.
4. She was amazed by the changes she saw when she arrived.
5. The streets are being repaired all month long by the construction workers.
6. His retirement will be celebrated by the party.
7. His oral exam was discussed right in front of him by the professors.
8. The homemade cookies were eaten by my son.
9. The hull of the ship was damaged by corrosion.
10. While I was there, the old homestead was visited by some children.

Non-zero sum game

The Selfish Gene

P. 222-233

.

What is a non-zero sum game?

"In zero-sum games, the fortunes of the players are inversely related. In tennis, in chess, in boxing, one contestant's gain is the other's loss. In non-zero-sum games, one player's gain needn't be bad news for the other(s). Indeed, in highly non-zero-sum games the players' interests overlap entirely. In 1970, when the three Apollo 13 astronauts were trying to figure out how to get their stranded spaceship back to earth, they were playing an utterly non-zero-sum game, because the outcome would be either equally good for all of them or equally bad. (It was equally good.)

.
Back in the real world, things are usually not so clear-cut. A merchant and a customer, two members of a legislature, two childhood friends sometimes—but not always—find their interests overlapping. To the extent that their interests do overlap, their relationship is non-zero-sum; the outcome can be win-win or lose-lose, depending on how they play the game." Taken from http://nonzero.org/gametheory.htm

.

What is a zero-sum game?

In game theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). It is so named because when the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero. Chess and Go are examples of a zero-sum game: it is impossible for both players to win. Zero-sum can be thought of more generally as constant sum where the benefits and losses to all players sum to the same value. Cutting a cake is zero- or constant-sum because taking a larger piece reduces the amount of cake available for others. In contrast, non-zero-sum describes a situation in which the interacting parties' aggregate gains and losses is either less than or more than zero. Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum

Nice Guys Finish First

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 202-222

.

.....I began reading Chapter 12, Nice Guys Finish Last, and quite honestly I didn't understand much of how Prisoner's Dilemna is really played. I didn't even understand the game relating to Tit for Tat. However, all I know is that most probable thing any human would do is chose whatever saves him from the consequences or punishment he/she will receive. Humans are a selfish species after all; we might appear to have altruistic moments and characteristics but when it comes to life or death, we are definitely selfish. What would you do if you had to choose whether to tell on someone or spend the next 10 years (a whole lifetime!) of your life in a 3X3 cell? I would definitely tell on the person and so would you and everyone you know! Even if there's only a chance that by risking someone else you can save yourself, you will still betray the person. The little piece of hope that "what if" brings, will always push you to tell on the person. I think this has something to do with Darwin's survival of the fittest.

.

......The fittest person is the one that is willing to do whatever it takes in order to insure their survival. They are the selfish ones because they are willing to risk and endanger anyone else as long as they are safe. If you just stand around trying to protect everyone, then you aren't watching after yourself and this could put your survival at risk. Therefore, in my opinion, the fittest are the selfish beings that want to ensure their survival above anyone else's.

Gene Machines

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 50-65

......As I read this chapter, I had no idea where Dawkins was heading, not to mention it was one of the hardest chapters I've read so far. It was a jumble of ideas. It was as if he was trying to tie loose ends in one chapter with very little explanations. I mean, he began by talking about muscles, then he compared genes and brains to a computers and programmers, then he talked about electronic chess games. But his jumble didn't stop there he began a brief talk about simulation and learning, and just when it couldn't become more confusing he jumped back to his thesis, selfish vs. altruistic species. I must admit I was confused through most of the chapter and had to read many passage more than once, but now that I look back at it, it's all connected.

.

......The chapter is called "The Gene Machine," and as I read I soon found out the brain is a gene machine. The brain was created by genes, in order for them to survive and flourish in the world. However, the brain soon got powerful enough to avoid the gene's commands by learning and simulating what it wanted. The genes in a way conformed to the brain's newly acquired power as long as they could live in peace, and the brain provided them with a hearty survival. (But wouldn't this conformity also lead to their end? The brain obviously has the upper hand; it can do whatever it wants. What if the brain makes a bad choice and the body dies? What happens if a choice affects a gene and makes it unrepairable? What would the genes do then to ensure their survival? They wouldn't be able to do anything, I mean, they would be dead!) But, this example is present in every day action; it isn't as unique as one would think.

.

......Everywhere we look, people conform to their government, to their society, to their culture, to their economic status, to their friends, to anything really, as long as their confomity provides some sort of stability and security. People are willing to accept just about anything as long as their choice doesn't endanger their existence in any way or form. However, their choices are never 100% insured; no one can tell what's going to happen for sure in future. However, as the famous saying goes, Like father, like son. As humans beings we are just like the genes that make us up.

The Selfish Gene

Response to Richard Dawkin's Video

.

....Up to what I've read in this book, I don't understand why Dawkins could have called the book "The Altruistic Animal." I mean, Altruistic Gene would make sense, but just because you have a selfish gene doesn't mean you will automatically be altruistic. You need both genes in order to be one or the other. If you only have the selfish gene and not the altruistic one, then you can only be selfish. Or does it mean that the selfish gene contains both selfish and altruistic characteristics? I really don't understand these whole area. However, I completely agree when he states that his book is just another approach to the Darwinian theory. In my opinion, it's the same theory just looked at it from a gene's point of view, as well as from evolution. In the book, Dawkins is looking at humans, humans aren't the ones looking at evolution.

RESEARCH PAPER RULES AND SOURCES

RESEARCH RULES

Paraphrased from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/

1. Read the preface, as it will allow you to see what the author wants to portray in his writing. This will also allow to see if it´s detailed enough or not.
2. Look at the sources used in order to find other useful sources for your own paper.
3. You should make sure the material you are looking for is friendly for the audience you choose. Is it age appropiate?
4. Decide whether your source is biased or factual. Will this help your own research or not?
5. Evaluate the effectiveness of the source for what you need it.
6. Is the paper opinion or objective?
7. Is the theme overstated or oversimplified this might affect your own paper.
8. Is the source reliable, does it use reliable sources to back up his information?
9. How accurate is the source?
10. Does the author back up his points of view?
11. Is the source up to date? If not is this pertinent to your paper?
12. Try to look for the same information in another source to check it's accuracy.
13. What is the integrity and credibility of the source? Do they have any? Are they well-known and reliable?
14. Are both sides looked at in order to make the arguments? In other words, good arguments are given looking at both sides of the issue.

5 Secondary Sources for Table Manners

• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=9FY516586155&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W62573137519&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=200706226010835811&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W64162464285&site=ehost-live
• http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=2W62W64209653248&site=ehost-live

Immortal Genes not Immortal DNA

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 35-50

.

November 18, 2007

1:59 P.M.

.

.......In my last blog about the Selfish Gene, I completely misinterpreted Dawkins' message. As I continued reading the "Immortal Coil" chapter, I realized that DNA isn't immortal. DNA does die eventually, however, genes are constantly passed down from generation to generation. Even if you die, another relative or another human being will probably have the genes that died along with you. They might not have your genetic combination, but they will have some genes and another person others. All your dead genes will still exist in other people. I had never looked at it this way, and I found it very interesting. It's true, as crazy as it sounds, genes never die. Some one else always have the genes that died (not all, and not in the same configuration), but they are very much present.

.

........Even if I do agree with Dawkins' point of view regarding gene longetivity, I don't agree with the theorical value he gives to sex. Dawkins calls sex a "bizarre perversion of straightforward replication (p. 43)." He thinks sex is an inefficient way to spread one's genes. Why go through all the trouble of finding a suitable partner and then go through all the trouble of sex? But sex isn't just for reproduction. Sex represents passions and emotions. Humans are a very passionate species; we just don't do things in order to "survive" as a species. I mean, we are driven by emotions: love, greed, ambition, and as corny as it sounds, we do follow our hearts. Sex isn't as superficial as Dawkins makes it sound, it has a much deeper, psychological meaning to humans. If it was only for the species' survival, then it would actually become more of a pressured burden than anything else.

.

.....I also don't agree with Dawkins' point to alter genes in order to prolong human lifespan. I mean, alter the genetic sequences in order to trick the genes to believe your are younger? There world's already overpopulated, the water supply is growing less and less with each day that passes by, why do you want more people to compete in order to survive? That's ridiculous. We need to let things run their course, because our need to intervene in everything in order to prolong our survival is just going to lead to our end.

So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don't Want To: Paraphrasing, Summarizing, Quoting

So That Nobody Has To Go To School If They Don't Want To

CLASS EXERCISE

November 15, 2007

PARAPHRASING: People have a misconception about schools, they aren't somewhere to play, fool around, or socialize; just as well, they aren't in place as babysitters. Schools are in place so people can go there and learn. If obligatory education is taken away, then people that don't want to enjoy this priviledge can have the choice to stay away.

ORIGINAL: First, it would alert everyone that school is a serious place where one goes to learn. Schools are neither day-care centers nor indoor street corners. Young people who resist learning should stay away; indeed, an end to compulsory schooling would require them to stay away.

SUMMARY: Studies have shown that obligatory education is very inefficient and a complete waste of time. Obligatory education just holds back students that actually want to learn something, and allows troublemakers to ruin the learning experience for others. Parents are usually deceived into believing that their children are attending a well rounded education that will help in the future; however, this isn't the case. By cleaning the learning environment of malefactors, the credibility and the reputation of educational institutions will improve. Costs will go down and the financial benefits for the different communities that apply will sky rocket. By taking away obligatory education, public education will not be ruined, it will just be a new incentive for legislators to fund even better education. In other words, by taking away obligatory education a lot of new benefits will be gained.

QUOTING: As Roger Sipher said in his "compulsory education" article: " Schools should be for education," not for playing around.

The Immortal Coil

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 20-35

November 13, 2007

8:24 P.M.

.'

......What is the "immortal coil"? And is it really "immortal"? Dawkins argues that DNA, the immortal coil, never dies off, it is passed from generation to generation. Dawkins connects it to a coil, because in theory, a coil is never ending, and because the shape of a DNA is a "double helix." (Dawkins makes those two terms sound like the same thing.) However, he also says that each time DNA and genes are passed from generation to generation they are modified somewhat. In other words, you get half of your DNA from your mother and the other half from your father. However, these halves can always be variations as they are mixed with your other parent's half. In other words, it is not physically possible for some one to have your exact same DNA (unless you are an identical twin). And even if you have an identical twin, your children will not have the same DNA, as each sperm and egg have different genetic configurations. During the configuring of the sperm or the egg, some of your own personal genes will be lost of greatly modified, so in theory it DNA is not eternal. Your DNA isn't immortal: it dies when you die. I don't agree with the term he uses in order to describe DNA to the reader; it is very misleading. Our DNA does die eventually, so what does he mean when he calls it immortal?

.

......There must be a reason as to why Dawkins refers to the DNA as the "immortal coil". This is probably due to the fact that the idea of DNA is never going to die. Even if everyone has a different DNA and it dies when you die, the idea of DNA will always be present for humanity. It helps us (and always will) to trace historical events (illegitimate children, criminals, etc.), to solve daily crimes, and to identify us as separate human beings. Our DNA is our identity, and that is something that will never die because it lives in memories. DNA cannot be stolen, so even if they rob your social security, forge your signature, or falsify your fingerprints, you will be able to prove that you are innocent.

The Selfish Gene: Introduction

The Selfish Gene

Pg. 1- 20

Nov. 13, 2007

7:48 P.M.

Biology, Zoology, and Some Misinterpretation:

......As I read Chapter 1 I realized I really didn't know the difference between the two, and I soon learned knowing it was essential as Dawkins usually compares them. While reading I came to the conclusion that they had to be very different things; however, now that I look at the definitions, zoology just seems a branch of biology. According to Wikipedia, zoology is the "biological discipline which involves the study of animals," while Biology is the "scientific study of life." However, my conclusion came from Dawkins own interpretation of what zoology is. "Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance (p. 1)." Dawkins recurs to studies referring to zoology in order to form his own conclusions about human and animal behavior. In my opinion he is completely misinterpreting the whole purpose of zoologists, though. I think zoologists are supposed to study the facts, not meddle with opinions and bias. I am not necessarily saying I disagree with his arguments, but Dawkins completely mixes opinions with facts. By manipulating the definition of zoology in order to get his point accross, Dawkins takes some credibility away from his work. This different interpretation will probably make his point harder to prove, but not impossible.

.

Are Humans Altruistic or Selfish?

......This question can be viewed from many different perspectives. Even if I don't agree with his interpretation of zoology, I have to agree with what Dawkins argues with respect to this question. We are altruistic when our reputation is on the line or when we have to put up a facade infront of others (like when we are taking part in an active role of society), yet, deep inside we are all very selfish. As a society we are very giving and altruistic. We want to fight for a common good and we are willing to sacrifice in order to attain this. But, if it wasn't for everyone else fighting for the same cause, then we wouldn't be willing to give up anything for any common good. One example that Dawkins used was the comparision between abortion and the killing of animals. "A human foetus, with no more human feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee (p. 10)." Dawkins argues that we care about an amoeba-like fetus that has no feelings and we provide them with certain rights and protection; however, an animal that is fully capable to understand and to feel doesn't even have the right to live. I had never seen that perspective, and as shocking as it was, it is very true. We care more about what looks good in society's eyes than what is actually good. We would rather bring an unhappy and abused child into this world, than protect the happiness of a lion pup. How ironic is that? What if all we think is right is actually wrong? I really think that humans need to start reevaluating morality, what's right, and even more important what's wrong.

What song would Hamlet choose?

November 7, 2007

8:47 P.M.

....If I were Hamlet I would have chosen the song Leech by Incubus in order to expose my personality. I chose this song, because Hamlet is a very peculiar character that constantly confuses the audience as to what his real feelings and actions are. He isn't a very reliable character. The audience can never be sure if what he says during his solliloquies is actually true, or if it's just his double personality speaking. I think that during Act III, the reader really gets to see Hamlet's duality and madness. When I heard this song, I could imagine Hamlet saying the lyrics to himself. This song has some sort of duality to it; it has this bipolar sense to it. I mean, each couple of phrases complement eachother with complete paradoxes. Just as well, a line that really impacted me was "Your fictional, plastic alibi..." This is so true with Hamlet, because as stated before we don't know if what Hamlet is a reliable narrator.

LEECH- By: Incubus

Does it make you indie?
Does it make you proud...to talk the world
into a paper bag?
Spotty stain of "I'm ok", you're not ok!
Yes, men too, can be on the rag.
"I'm in over my head, I need a pick me up!"
Whoa Ho Oh Ho
It's easy to get high when your'e standing on our backs man.
Will anything ever be good enough for you?
Whoa Ho Oh Ho
Stand on your own, hold your water if you can.
Chorus:
The ride's over. Did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over. Fairing well?!
The ride's over. Did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over. Fairing well?!
Not on my time
It isn't fair to mention, but it awes the crowd
Your fictional, plastic alibi
So take another hit, steal another line
Did you ever meet a leech who was good at goodbyes?
When you were down i always picked you up
Why didn't I recognize that everything was never fine?
I'm kicking myself that i shared spit with you
So fuck yourself
And fuck this bleeding heart of mine
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
Not on my time
When you were down i always picked you up
Why didn't I recognize that everything was never fine?
I'm kicking myself that i shared spit with you
So fuck yourself
And fuck this bleeding heart of mine
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over, did you enjoy yourself?
The ride's over, fair thee well
The ride's over

Paraphrasing Exercises in Class

Paraphrasing Exercises

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/619/02/

1. ORIGINAL: "The Antarctic is the vast source of cold on our planet, just as the sun is the source of our heat, and it exerts tremendous control on our climate," [Jacques] Cousteau told the camera. "The cold ocean water around Antarctica flows north to mix with warmer water from the tropics, and its upwellings help to cool both the surface water and our atmosphere. Yet the fragility of this regulating system is now threatened by human activity." From "Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.

PARAPHRASING: In the documentary, Cousteau explained to his audience in greater depth about the planet's climatical situation. The sun is an essential part of our existence and warmth, while the Antarctic is a very important source of cold also necessary for our existence. These two aspects vastly control the climate on planet Earth. The cold water currents that mix with the warmer, Northern ones help maintain stable temperatures and livable conditions for ourselves. However, this natural cycle that assures our own survival is currently endangered by our own activities.

2. ORIGINAL: The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.

PARAPHRASING: The 1920s were marked by a foolish Prohibition, organized crime, and corrupt and helpless police. Everyone knew how to get liquor, crime was everywhere, and the police couldn't do very much without risking their lives. Jazz took over the scene, leaving Classical music in the past and stars like "Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie" rose to fame giving the youth hope to fight. Just as well, the flappers came about with their "bobbed hair and short skirts" to represent the future.

3. ORIGINAL: 3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.

PARAPHRASING: Wearing a helmet can reduce the risk of hurting your head when you fall of a bike by almost 85%. This is due to the fac that the helmet ¨absorbs the shock¨which in turn protects the head by smoothing out the fall. Three-fourths of 1000 the deaths caused by bicycle accidents are caused by head trauma. Half of these deaths are children.

4. ORIGINAL: Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.

PARAPHRASING: Matisse is one of the very few painters that can make the viewer get the sensations lived in the painting, although he is a modern artist he is also very realistic. "The Casbah Gate" is a painting that shows "the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace." Matisse captures the essence of a Tangier afternoon perfectly: all the colors lived in the view that capture the "art history", as well as "the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate."

5. ORIGINAL: While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.

PARAPHRASING: Architects and engineers have yet to finished their search "for the world's tallest building," even if the Sears Tower is without a doubt the best triumph in modern day engineering. Many engineers have still bigger plans for the world's buildings, but how big can these plans be? William LeMessurier designed a building "half as tall as the Sears Tower" and would be one mile high. Just as well, Robert Sobel, it's enthusiastic in saying that with the modern technology humans would be capable of building a "500 story building."

Paraphrasing Excercise

Is this paraphrasing?

Activity from: http://gsi.berkeley.edu/resources/conduct/exercises.html

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes