The following section presents excerpts from a proposal on Edocs, an online environment for collaborating, created by a research team in Qatar. One of the team members believes Edocs facilitates collaboration among professional groups working from different countries. However, their clients (Qatar Foundation researchers) did not find the proposal confident or convincing enough. In the challenges that follow, try to consider the options presented so that the developers can make the most effective case for their audience.

Directions:
Identify and improve text that can make the report more effective, in terms of its metadiscourse, nominalizations, and concision.

Challenge 1: Using Metadiscourse

Your Goal

Use intensifiers and/or remove hedgers to make the tone more confident

Using Intensifiers or Remove Hedgers

1. Describing negative situations where your purpose is not to protect

the person or thing associated with the negativity

More Protection

The guides seem to have too much information to fit on a mobile screen.

Less Protection

The guides have too much information to fit on a mobile screen.

2. Being certain or direct or showing emphasis

Less Certain

This activity may be able to help you use metadiscourse in your next paper.

More Certain

This activity will help you use metadiscourse in your next paper.

Less Emphasis

I went through the activities.

More Emphasis

I went through all of the activities.

Comments on Response Options

Problem Text

Some teams may sometimes collaborate over email differently than meetings in person.

Option A

"Teams typically"

This option removes a couple hedgers (“some”, “sometimes”) to add more certainty and place emphasis on the the team’s actions. This would be appropriate if your purpose is to emphasize these axthctions.

Option B

"Some teams"

This option keeps a hedger (“some”) which places less emphasis on the team’s actions. This would be appropriate if your purpose is to place less emphasis on the actions.

Option C

"It is possible that teams"

This option uses a hedger (“possible”) which places even less emphasis on the team’s actions. This would be appropriate for a different type of document where you are not making an argument.