Page 159 - English for Writing Research Papers

142

So when you have something important to say, begin a new paragraph.

Compare these two versions of the same text. This time read the texts.

readers may or may not notice your readers will notice your findings
findings
The results showed that tourists in front The results showed that tourists in front of
of important monuments who take selfi es important monuments who take selfi es using

using selfie sticks and those who drop selfie sticks and those who drop litter have

litter have an equivalent negative an equivalent negative empathy value, thus
empathy value suggesting that such suggesting that such people should be
people should be considered under the considered under the category of 'majorly
category of 'majorly selfi sh'. Additional selfi sh'.
observations support our view: i) subjects Four additional observations support our

of the selfie group had a mean lag time of view.
30.3 seconds between arriving at the

monument and the onset of the need to Firstly, subjects in the selfie group had a
take a photograph of themselves. ii) The mean lag time of 30.3 seconds between
mean time of the litter group between arriving at the monument and the onset of
arrival and dropping cans and food the need to take a photograph of themselves.
packages was aligned with the expected Secondly, the mean time of the litter group

response from the selfie group to being between arrival and dropping cans and food
given a warning by the monument packages was aligned with the expected
guards. iii) The MEMEME ego ratio in response from the selfie group to being given

the selfie group was compatible with a a warning by the monument guards.

destructive form of graffiti writing, and Thirdly, the MEMEME ego ratio in the selfi e

not significantly different from that group was compatible with a destructive
found in the can't-see-the-writing-on- form of graffiti writing, and not signifi cantly

the-wall group. iv) No signifi cant different from that found in the can't-see-the-
differences in the recurrence rate of writing-on-the-wall group.
Kudnt Givadam Syndrome (KS) were
observed between the groups. Fourthly, no significant differences in the

recurrence rate of Kudnt Givadam Syndrome
(KGS) were observed between the groups.
The version on the right clearly takes up more space, but readers are far more likely
to notice it and consequently read it than the version on the left.