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. Along these lines, 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, marked > "93211-D,layer seven, close to the clothesline post...Hominid skull." > We have given this example a cautious and point by point assessment, and > lament to illuminate you that we can't help contradicting your hypothesis that it > speaks to convincing evidence of the nearness of Early Man in > Charleston County 2,000,000 years back. > > Rather, apparently what you have found is the leader of a Barbie > doll, of the assortment that one of our staff, who has little youngsters, > accepts to be "Malibu Barbie." It is clear that you have given a > extraordinary 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 unwilling to come to logical inconsistency with your discoveries. > However, we do feel that there are various physical traits of > the example which may have warned you to its cutting edge birthplace: > > 1. The material is formed plastic. Antiquated primate remains are > commonly fossilized bone. > > 2. The cranial limit of the example is roughly 9 cubic > centimeters, well underneath the limit of even the soonest > recognized proto-homonids. > > 3. The dentition design obvious on the skull is progressively predictable with > the regular tamed canine than it is with the avaricious > man-eating Pliocene mollusks you estimate wandered the wetlands during > that time. This last finding is positively one of the most > interesting theories you have submitted in your history with this > organization, however the proof appears to weigh rather intensely > against it. Without broadly 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.