Peer feedback: error, disputed usage, or style?
Elena has written a 250-word opinion article for the school magazine arguing that first-year students should have no more than 45 minutes of homework per night. The class is doing peer feedback, and each student may leave exactly three comments. Four sentences have been flagged: (a) 'Having read the article, the argument seems weak.' (b) 'None of the students who were surveyed thinks homework is useful.' (c) 'There are less people doing homework than before.' (d) 'Homework is pointless, it just makes students tired.' The teacher has warned the class not to label personal style as error, and not to spend comments on points a reader would not notice. Elena is confident about her writing and has previously dismissed feedback she thought was pedantic.
1. Classify each flagged sentence as a clear error, a disputed usage, or a style choice, and select the three you would comment on. Justify your exclusions.
Read the worked answer
(a) Clear error - dangling participle. 'Having read the article' attaches to the nearest subject, 'the argument', so the sentence literally says the argument read the article. The reader stumbles, then reconstructs. This is the kind of fault examiners reward candidates for spotting.
(b) Disputed usage, not an error. Traditional grammar treats 'none' as singular; British usage has long allowed a plural verb, and 'think' would be unremarkable. Neither form would lose a mark at this level. Exclude.
(c) Clear usage error - 'less' with a countable noun. 'Fewer people' is the standard form. It is a rule of thumb rather than a law of nature, but it is the rule examiners apply, and it is quick to fix.
(d) Clear error - comma splice. Two independent clauses joined by a comma, so the reader must decide whether the second explains the first or contradicts it. Include.
My three: (a), (d), (c). I drop (b) on two grounds: it is not an error, and Elena has a history of rejecting feedback she considers pedantic. Spending one of only three comments on a disputed point would cost me credibility for the two comments that matter.
2. Rewrite (a) and (d). For (d), give two acceptable versions and explain how they differ in meaning.
Read the worked answer
(a) 'Having read the article, I find the argument weak.' The fix is one pronoun: the participle now has a subject it can logically belong to. An alternative that keeps Elena's impersonal tone is 'The article's argument seems weak to me after reading it', though this is wordier and softens the claim.
(d), version 1 - colon: 'Homework is pointless: it just makes students tired.' The colon announces that what follows explains or justifies what came before. This preserves Elena's rhetorical structure exactly: claim, then reason. It is the better choice for an opinion article, where the second clause is meant to support the first.
(d), version 2 - semicolon: 'Homework is pointless; it just makes students tired.' The semicolon only says the two statements are related; it does not say how. A reader could take the second clause as a concession or a consequence, which is weaker.
Version 3, worth mentioning: a full stop - 'Homework is pointless. It just makes students tired.' This is always correct and gives each claim its own weight, but it loses the tight cause-and-effect rhythm Elena is aiming for.
3. Write the three comments you would actually give Elena, phrased so that she is likely to act on them.
Read the worked answer
Comments should be about the sentence, specific enough to apply, and where possible offer a choice rather than a verdict.
Comment 1 (on a): 'In this sentence the opening phrase seems to describe "the argument" - as written, the argument is doing the reading. Adding "I" after the comma fixes it: "Having read the article, I find the argument weak."'
Comment 2 (on d): 'Two complete statements are joined by a comma here, so I had to re-read to see whether the second one explains or contradicts the first. A colon would make it explanation, which I think is what you mean: "Homework is pointless: it just makes students tired."'
Comment 3 (on c): '"People" is countable, so standard written English wants "fewer people". Small point, easy fix, and examiners do look for it.'
Three things are deliberate. Each names the effect on the reader before the rule, because Elena disputes rules but cannot dispute my reading experience. Each offers wording she can paste, so acting on the feedback costs her nothing. And the smallest point is explicitly labelled small, which is what makes the two larger comments credible rather than nagging.