![]() ![]() ![]() For that reason, you must use it with a critical eye, reviewing each suggestion and considering whether it helps or hurts. At the same time, I noted that it applies rules mechanically, unable to discern meaning, context or color. In some instances, it was able to improve the writing of Scalia and Kagan. In my prior review, I found good and bad in WordRake. ![]() ![]() It is the creation of Gary Kinder, a lawyer and writer whose 1998 book, Ship Of Gold In The Deep Blue Sea, went to number seven on The New York Times bestseller list. It “rakes” your documents in search of unnecessary and obtuse words, suggesting edits to improve clarity and concision. Breyer.Ĭreated specifically for lawyers, WordRake is an add-on to Microsoft Word. Roberts Jr., the concurring opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas and the dissent of Justice Stephen G. The case provided the opportunity to test WordRake against the writing of three justices: the plurality opinion by Chief Justice John G. This time, I decided to give Justices Scalia and Kagan a rest, so I turned to the Supreme Court’s controversial recent opinion in McCutcheon v. Now, WordRake is preparing to release version 2.0 of its software and it provided me with a beta version. If WordRake could improve on Scalia and Kagan, I reasoned, imagine what it could do for the rest of us. When WordRake , the editing program for lawyers, was first released in 2012, I put it to the test against two of the most eloquent writers on the Supreme Court, Justices Antonin Scalia and Elena Kagan. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |