Sentence and style
Just tell me whats wrong with this piece. The issue of relegating relgion in the society is not something new. It was more intensed in the first days of the ''age of reasoning'' in which different scholars argued profusely that religious doctrines cannot survive under the curiosity of science. Hence, it will buckle under if experiementally tested. In the first instance this sort of ideology was regarded with grave consequences towards its advocates, and like the tantacles of the hydra it enters into the people's minds and made them oblivious of their fundamental responsibility to revere and worship the ''Designer of the universe.''
First, these words are misspelled in your text: religion, intense (to make more intense in the past tense would be intensified), tentacles, and experimentally (though you might mean experientially instead).
Then change all the doubled apostrophe's to quotation marks. They cause false positives in the checker for unrelated things and are technically incorrect.
The last sentence is a little long and awkward. You might be able to remove "sort of" since it modifies "ideology," which by definition is a type of thought. So technically, that is redundant. This sentence also has the issue of passive voice. You can fix that by changing "was regarded" to tell who regards the ideology as having consequences (scientists regard, followers consider, etc). You would also add a period after the introductory clause of that sentence (after "instance").
I know your opening sentence is not part of the piece, but "whats" should be "what's."
These are just a start. The sentence about buckling under if tested could use some rewording. I guess the dangling preposition and a less common word does it for me, but you might like that style.
|link comment||edited May 05 '12 at 14:00 Courtney Contributor|
Hero of the day
Person voted on the most questions.