Posted on 29th May 2017 21:24:10 in Proofreading

Proofreading rules

(Post was wriitten and proofread by International Student "Denisov Shan" and posted as it is)

Induction (or generalization) is complete and partial. Complete induction consists in the study of each case, which is included in the class of phenomena, about which conclusions are drawn. Such a possibility is rare, since there are an infinite number of individual cases. Thus, we generalize on the basis of the study of typical proofreading cases. But induction based on a limited amount of data does not lead to universal, or widely applicable, fundamental proofreading conclusions. The process of obtaining an average value is not an inference, but only an enumeration leading to summary data.

However, such methods are very valuable as the steps leading to the final evidence on special issues. Almost all statistical indicators are the sum total of individual lists.

Since most of the indicators cited in scientific texts are the result of lists of individual examples, there is a need to provide ways of justifying their use in such texts, based on the recommendations given by the well-known American expert on oratorical art Paul P. The first way is to establish whether the example that is the basis of the generalization is proofread and correct, since the incorrectness of such an example can sharply undermine confidence not only in this generalization, but also in the author himself of the scientific work.

The second way is to find out whether the example has an attitude towards the conclusion. Assume that the paint brand A is cheaper than the paint brands B, B and G. It would seem inevitable conclusion that the paint brand A more profitable than others. But such a conclusion would be wrong, because the proofread examples given do not have the quality of relevance to the conclusion. They are only relevant to the conclusion that A brand paint is the cheapest. The best quality paint of other brands makes them more profitable. This is one of the most common proofreading mistakes in inductive conclusions.

The third way is to determine if there are enough examples. The decision of a question, whether it is enough taken examples, depends on their quantity, a way of selection and a changeability. Taking two cases of incompetence of domestic businessmen at random, one can not conclude that all our businessmen are incompetent people. In Russia, many thousands of entrepreneurs. When selecting several examples, the random factor plays an important role. English businessmen, like all other people, are very different.

The fourth way is to establish whether the selected examples are typical. This method of verification is directly related to the above. Enough or not enough proofreading examples, depends on how typical they are.

In scientific research, the object of proofreading is often individual unique in its individual characteristics of events, objects and phenomena. When they are explained and evaluated, it is difficult to apply both deductive and inductive reasoning. In this case, one resorts to inference by analogy when they compare a new single phenomenon to another, known and similar to it a single phenomenon and spread to the first previously received information.

In scientific proofreading, analogy acquires the importance of important for the enhancement of scientific knowledge of the type of inference. The history of the development of science and technology shows that the analogy served as the basis for many scientific and technical discoveries. A special role is played by inference in analogy in social and historical sciences, often acquiring the importance of the only possible method of investigation. Not having sufficient factual material, the historian often explains little-known facts, events and situation by means of their assimilation to previously researched events and facts from the life of other peoples, given the similarity in the level of development of the economy, culture and political organization of society.

Not all analogies are logical, therefore, their proofreading verification is necessary. There are two ways to verify them. The first way - is it really appropriate to compare phenomena? The second way - is there a significant difference between them?

The truth is that there is no complete logical analogy, for there are no two completely identical sets of circumstances. Therefore, analogy can rarely be used without resorting to other kinds of evidence. Therefore, let us consider another variant of induction - the judgment about the causal dependence, which plays a particularly important role in the scientific text. It is here that most often we have to fix the change of proofreading services. The conclusion about the cause is the logical reasoning about the change: it represents the conclusion that in the given state of things the result will be some conclusion (from cause to effect) or that this state of affairs is caused by known other conditions (conclusion from effect to reason). A variant of these types of inference is the conclusion from the investigation to the effect, if both have one common cause.

In conclusion, from the cause to the effect, the cause is known and a consequence is derived from it. For example: "The cost of oil has risen, therefore, the price of gasoline will also rise."

In conclusion, the consequence is known from the investigation to the cause, and a conclusion is drawn about the reason. For example: "In industrial workers, where wages are higher, productivity is higher than in enterprises where wages are lower, therefore, wages are the cause of the difference in proofreading productivity."