Passive voice has no place at all in technical writing. It however obscures, who the actor actually was, what caused it exactly, and when did it happen. Use active voice and clear, simple, direct phrasing.

Talking as a first person is very rarely appropriate in technical writing. You should never use a first person to describe the operation of a system or program. It can be only appropriate when you are discussing something that the author of the paper did manually. (Recall that your paper should be coached as narrative.) If you use “we” for “the author and the reader” it would be consequently confusing on the paper (such as, “In this section, we were….”) or even like, “the system is being described” (“we have computed a graph”, this makes it sound as if the author has made it by hand.) As a relating point, don’t anthropomorphize the computers: they actually do hate it. Anthropomorphism, such as “the program however thinks that….” is quite unclear and vague.

Briefly, make every word count of your paper. If you find a word that does not support your point, just cut it right there, because use of excessive verbiage and fluff only makes it harder for the reader to appreciate the message that you are trying to convey. However, try to use shorter and more direct phrases wherever it is possible. Avoid puffery, value judgments, and self-congratulation: try to give the facts and let the reader judge it.

Avoid using words like “clearly” or “obviously”. If your point is quite obvious then you’re just wasting another word by pointing out as it is not needed. Let the reader decide whether it’s clear and obvious or not. And if the point is not obvious enough then (readers would not be familiar with the subject matter the way the author would be), so this way you offend the readers by insulting their intelligence, and also by demonstrating your own inability to communicate the intuition.

Always prefer singular to plural number. In the “sequence induce graphs”, however it is not clear whether the two of the collections are in one to one correspondence or not, or the set of the sequences collectively induce the set of graphs; “each of the sequence induces the graph” avoids this particular confusion. Likewise, in “graphs that might contain paths”, it is not clear whether a given graph contains multiple paths or not, or it might as well contain at most one path.

Some suggestions in this document are basically about good writing, which might seem secondary to the research. But if you write clearly it would help you think more clearly and often reveal flaws (or the ideas!) that had been previously invisible to you. Furthermore, if your writing is not good enough, then the readers would not be able to comprehend your good ideas, or the readers would be quite suspicious of your technical research work. If you do not or maybe cannot write well, why should the readers believe that you were any more careful in your research itself? Your writing reflects you, so make sure you make it reflect well.

Author Bio: Courtesy: Ghost Term papers P.S(Do not add this in article): Publishing of this article without the proper hyperlinks/author details will be reported to authorities which may cause removal of the content, site or blog completely.

Category: Education
Keywords: term papers, term paper writing, term paper help