I have gone through your work very thoroughly, and have made a very large number of changes, so that it now reads much more persuasively. I have also eliminated all the repetition and the more dubious of the assertions made. You do seem rather preoccupied with the idea that mailed questionnaires are a good idea whenever the sample is small, though in reality that can be, and are used for any size of sample - one of their great benefits is that they can be used wherever the popularion is disparate, and living a long way from the resarcher.

In addition to my corrections, I think the following points need to be incorporated into your essay if it is to achieve a very high mark:

1. The response rate is almost always low - May (1993) says that it seldom rises above 40% and often falls to below 10%.

2. This underlines the fact that those do reply may not be representative of the population, and so limits the validity of the results. Replies may be systematically biased towards one segment of the population. For example, a postal questionnaire focusing on health issues will almost invariably receive a greater response from high income than from low income households. Since there is a positive correlation between income and health, it follows that the overall result will tend to suggest that the population is healthier than it actually is.

3. In principle, postal questionnaires are cheap to administer, though the researcher will have to send a reply-paid envelope. There is also the cost of the covering documentation - explaining the purpose of the exercise and requesting cooperation. The cost mounts whenever reminders have to be sent to those who have failed to reply. In such cases there is usually the cost of having to print and send the questionnaire again, and this cost escalates if this has to be repeated several times.

4. If the identities of those returning the questionnaire are anonymous, as is good practice, then the researcher will be unable to establish who has responded and who has not, and therefore cannot re-submit the questionnaire to the latter group.

5. The questions must be very carefully compiled and must lack any kind of ambiguity. Otherwise it is impossible to know whether they have been correctly understood, since the researcher cannot then clarify the meaning. Moreover, since there is no face-to-face contact, it is impossible to kow whether the questions have been answered honestly. Clear instructions for completing the questionnaire must also be included, while in practice relatively few questions can be asked, since evidence suggests that the response rate to longer questionnaires is almost always low.

6. Nevertheless, postal questionnaires are popular as the researcher is able to select a sample from what might be a geographically disparate population; they are also cheaper and less time-consuming to administer than those conducted through interview; moreover, many researchers don't enjoy meeting respondents face-to-face! At the same time, postal questionnaires make it virtually impossible to use either a stratified or a quota sample, and yet it is precisely these samples that normally give the results their greatest validity.

I hope all this is helpful.

Your method needs more detail, or rather your scientific knowledge you use needs to be linked to the method with an explanation of WHY you are doing the experiment like this. A major problem, though, is that this experiment does not measure the terminal velocity! It measures the time taken to fall, which is linked to the average velocity, not the terminal velocity.

Your analysis is far too short and shallow, and you have not done any evaluation!

This is a through and convincing analysis. You offer balance and sophistication in your argument and back up your points with close reference to the text, including Shakespeare’s use of imagery. Apart from minor errors here and there this is a very good essay.

Notes:

1. Iago, his ‘trusted subordinate’ [,] serves

2. Furthermore, Othello’s mind seems to strongly affect his body. As the play progresses his speech deteriorates, he refers to monsters and demons and [some close analysis of imagery would be of help here]

3. Othello insists ‘I will chop her in to messes,’ this monstrous [full stop rather than comma needed here]

4. (for example when he says ‘black ram’ using vulgar imagery to stereotype Othello’s colour and brand him libidinous. [no closed bracket here]

5. with the reoccurring usage [recurring]

6. together he strongly fears loosing his wife [losing]

This is a competent analysis. You identify the main points that underlie Waters’ comic philosophy and express yourself clearly and precisely. Supporting quotations are effective. Check for minor errors such as those below however.

Notes:

1. is an exceptionally influential and [seems to be a word missing here]
2. convincing, this could [full stop rather than comma needed here]
3. audience’’ you [audience’’. You]
4. For the Challenor [the?]
5. In conclusions [In conclusion]

This is a convincing analysis. You explain the context out of which the Miller emerges quite well and there is some close analysis of Chaucer’s description of the Miller and what this implies. At times, you might offer more quotations in support of your points (for example, you could do with given an example of the alliteration you refer to). Check for errors such as those below:

Notes:

1. whom is [who]
2. literacy canon [literary]
3. the knight [Knight]
4. The Miller[‘]s {also, italicise titles]
5. phycially and mentally [physically]

This is a monumental piece of work and is very comprehensive. You have by and large succeeded in answering the questions posed at the start.

I have read it very carefully, and have made plenty of changes, though without altering the overall word length. In particular, I have removed all the hazy sentences and replaced them with something sharper and more direct. I have clarified a number of the theoretical points you have made. I have beefed up the conclusion. And, in odd places, I have totally rewritten a paragraph - whenever it seemed not to flow from the rest of the argument, or else where you misinterpreted a graph )partcularly on Page 8, with the discussion of the relationship between inflation and interest rates). (By the way, on Page 2, you list monetary policy and interest rates as different 'theoretical approaches', when they are in fact exactly the same!)

You might also want to improve the presentation, though I leave that to you. The Contents page looks rather ugly, for example. And I'd go in for justifying the text throughout.

I hope you find this helpful.

This is a well-written and convincing story. You describe the characters and events with some precision and create a believable situation. You develop the story well, not rushing things to much. The only thing you need to take care of is your punctuation. At times you’re relying on commas to do the work of full stops.


Notes:

1. a postman stood at the door [standing]

2. “Good morning”, I said to the postman. [comma should come inside the quotation marks: ,”]

3. me to sign, I signed the [full stop rather than comma needed here]

4. Tom’s dad, the man [needs a full stop rather than a comma]

5. apartment, I was knackered; [this informal piece of language doesn’t seem to fit the tone of the rest of the language of your story]

6. He span me around [spun me around]

This is a convincing and perceptive portrayal. You envisage the scene very clear and maximise its comic potential in a variety of ways. I particularly liked the donkey versus cat-like movement of the respective characters, in addition to some of the more subtle points you make. Well- written and precise in expression.

Notes:

1. Bottom[,] however,

2. swiftly and delver the line [deliver]

3. Bottoms face and [Bottom’s face and]

This is a conscientious piece of work Your make a range of valid points and your essay is clearly structured. However, sometimes the development of your p[points is not as fluent and clear as they might be and at times there’s a need for tighter, more precise expression. Also look to vary the way you open your paragraphs, There are quite a few errors too, such as those below, which you need to put right. At the moment it reads a little too much like a draft in need of some revision.

Notes:

1. play King Richard 3rd [italicise book titles]

2. do the women highlight Richard’s true nature. [needs question mark]

3. that he resemble [resembles]

4. just ton stay in power [to]

5. that he is hypercrit and manipulative [a hypocrite]

6. when he woe’s Anne [woos Anne]