Saturday, August 22, 2020

business letters :: essays research papers

The story behind the letter beneath is that there is this person in > Newport, RI named Scott Williams who uncovers things from underneath his lawn > and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, marking > them with logical names, demanding that they are genuine > archeological finds. This person truly exists and does this in his > save time. Here's the real reaction from the Smithsonian Institution to > one such find. Thus, whenever you are tested to react in >writing..... > ____________________________________________________ > > Smithsonian Institute > 207 Pennsylvania Avenue > Washington, DC 20078 > > Dear Mr. Williams: > > Thank you for your most recent accommodation to the Institute, named > "93211-D,layer seven, close to the clothesline post...Hominid skull." > We have given this example a cautious and nitty gritty assessment, and > lament to advise you that we can't help contradicting your hypothesis that it > speaks to convincing confirmation of the nearness of Early Man in > Charleston County 2,000,000 years prior. > > Rather, apparently what you have found is the leader of a Barbie > doll, of the assortment that one of our staff, who has little kids, > accepts to be "Malibu Barbie." It is apparent that you have given a > incredible arrangement of thought to the examination of this example, and you may > be very sure that those of us who know about your earlier work > in the field were opposed to come to logical inconsistency with your discoveries. > However, we do feel that there are various physical properties of > the example which may have warned you to its advanced source: > > 1. The material is shaped plastic. Old primate remains are > ordinarily fossilized bone. > > 2. The cranial limit of the example is around 9 cubic > centimeters, well beneath the edge of even the most punctual > distinguished proto-homonids. > > 3. The dentition design obvious on the skull is increasingly reliable with > the regular trained pooch than it is with the voracious > man-eating Pliocene shellfishes you guess wandered the wetlands during > that time. This last finding is unquestionably one of the most > charming theories you have submitted in your history with this > foundation, however the proof appears to weigh rather intensely > against it. Without really expounding, let us state that: > > A. The example appears as though the leader of a Barbie doll that a > hound has bitten on. > B. Shellfishes don't have teeth. > > It is with sentiments tinged with despairing that we should deny your > solicitation to have the example cell based dated.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.