Writing for Computer Science – Chapter 1: Introduction
Summary
In Chapter 1, Introduction, Zobel outlines the purpose, scope, and guiding philosophy of the book. He explains that Writing for Computer Science is intended to help authors—especially students and researchers in computing—improve both their writing and their approach to research. Key points include:
- The book is about writing (technical/scientific) and research methods, and treats them as intertwined.
- Some advice is accepted wisdom, some is the author’s opinion, and some may be controversial.
- The coverage is broad rather than deep, with practical guidance.
- Later editions expand research-methods content while refining writing advice.
- Readers should browse and consult as needed; there are checklists and exercises.
- Uses British spellings and consistent terminology (e.g., “advisor,” “thesis”).
- Emphasizes skepticism in science; clear writing enables scrutiny.
1.1 Using This Book
What is the intended main use of this book according to the introduction?
A. It should only be skimmed for quotes to use in a thesis.
❌ Wrong — the intent is broader than just finding quotes.
B. The aim is to serve as a strict rulebook that must always be followed without deviation.
❌ Wrong — the book offers guidance, not rigid rules.
C. It is supposed to be read once from start to finish without skipping.
❌ Wrong — selective reading and browsing are encouraged.
D. It is meant to be browsed and used as a reference, not memorized or learned by rote.
✅ Correct — the author stresses flexibility and reference use.
What features does the author mention to aid the reader in using the book?
A. There are daily journaling prompts to track research progress.
❌ Wrong — journaling is not part of the book’s design.
B. The book includes checklists and exercises to consult when specific issues arise.
✅ Correct — these are tools for practical use.
C. It contains certification quizzes that are mandatory before later chapters.
❌ Wrong — there are no certification requirements.
D. It has crossword puzzles about computer science terms.
❌ Wrong — entertaining puzzles are not included.
According to the author, what practice is essential for becoming competent at writing and research?
A. Memorizing guidelines without applying them.
❌ Wrong — application in real work is necessary.
B. Practice — doing research and writing with guidance from experienced researchers.
✅ Correct — competence comes from practice with feedback.
C. Passing exams on writing theory without actually writing.
❌ Wrong — theory alone can’t replace practice.
D. Only reading papers without writing your own.
❌ Wrong — passive reading can’t replace active writing.
Which advice best reflects how to read the book?
A. Read once or twice, absorb useful advice, then consult for specific problems as needed.
✅ Correct — this matches the author’s recommendation.
B. Only consult it when your advisor requires it.
❌ Wrong — intended for independent use too.
C. Only read it after finishing your research.
❌ Wrong — it’s meant to guide ongoing work.
D. Follow a daily page-by-page schedule regardless of current needs.
❌ Wrong — rigid scheduling is discouraged.
1.2 Scope and Content
What are the two main intertwined themes of the book?
A. Writing (technical/scientific) and research methods.
✅ Correct — these are the twin foci.
B. Team management and leadership skills.
❌ Wrong — those are outside the book’s scope.
C. Literary criticism and creative writing.
❌ Wrong — the book targets scientific communication.
D. Computer programming and hardware design.
❌ Wrong — implementation topics aren’t the focus.
How does the author describe the book’s depth and breadth?
A. Exclusively theoretical with no real-world applications.
❌ Wrong — the orientation is pragmatic.
B. Deeply focused on one narrow topic only.
❌ Wrong — the coverage is intentionally broad.
C. Broadly comprehensive but not necessarily deep in each topic.
✅ Correct — explicitly stated in the introduction.
D. Surface-level with no practical guidance.
❌ Wrong — it includes concrete tools and checklists.
What does the introduction say about the nature of some advice?
A. The book only repeats official academic rules.
❌ Wrong — it blends rules with the author’s guidance.
B. Every guideline is rigidly enforced and free from opinion.
❌ Wrong — personal perspective is acknowledged.
C. All advice is universally agreed upon and undisputed.
❌ Wrong — the author notes disagreement and opinion.
D. Some advice is accepted wisdom, some the author’s opinion, some controversial.
✅ Correct — the author is explicit about this mix.
What changed in later editions of the book?
A. Removed all writing advice and focused on hardware.
❌ Wrong — writing remains central.
B. Expanded research-methods content while refining writing advice.
✅ Correct — that evolution is highlighted.
C. Replaced content with fictional examples.
❌ Wrong — examples stayed practical.
D. Shifted entirely to mathematics and statistics.
❌ Wrong — scope stayed writing + research.
1.3 Terminology and Style Choices
What spelling convention does the book follow?
A. A mix of spellings without consistency.
❌ Wrong — consistency is a key aim.
B. British spelling (e.g., “rigour,” “judgement”).
✅ Correct — British spellings are used consistently.
C. American spelling exclusively (e.g., “rigor,” “judgment”).
❌ Wrong — the author intentionally uses British forms.
D. No spelling conventions at all.
❌ Wrong — conventions are deliberately chosen.
Which term does the author prefer over “supervisor”?
A. “Advisor”
✅ Correct — this is the preferred term in the book.
B. “Manager”
❌ Wrong — not the academic term in this context.
C. “Mentor”
❌ Wrong — related, but not the chosen standard term.
D. “Director”
❌ Wrong — not used for thesis supervision here.
Which word is used instead of “dissertation”?
A. “Paper”
❌ Wrong — too general and not equivalent.
B. “Report”
❌ Wrong — not synonymous with dissertation.
C. “Book”
❌ Wrong — not the right academic term.
D. “Thesis”
✅ Correct — the author uses “thesis” consistently.
Why explain stylistic and terminological choices?
A. To maintain clarity and consistency across audiences.
✅ Correct — the purpose is reader clarity.
B. To show off British English.
❌ Wrong — not a vanity choice.
C. To match only the author’s personal habits.
❌ Wrong — the explanations are for readers’ benefit.
D. To confuse readers from other academic systems.
❌ Wrong — the goal is the opposite.
1.4 Skepticism and the Role of Writing in Research
What philosophical stance is emphasized as important in science?
A. Trusting intuition over reason.
❌ Wrong — reason and evidence are required.
B. Blind acceptance of authoritative claims without critique.
❌ Wrong — this contradicts skepticism.
C. Skepticism — claims are provisionally accepted only with reasonable evidence.
✅ Correct — skepticism is central to scientific practice.
D. Rhetoric and persuasion matter more than evidence.
❌ Wrong — evidence is prioritized.
Why is good writing crucial in research?
A. To conceal weaknesses in research.
❌ Wrong — writing should expose, not hide, limitations.
B. It enables readers to understand and evaluate claims based on evidence.
✅ Correct — clarity allows evaluation and scrutiny.
C. To impress reviewers with fancy vocabulary.
❌ Wrong — clarity matters more than ornamentation.
D. It’s mainly for marketing to sponsors.
❌ Wrong — the purpose is scholarly communication.
What role does writing play in scientific skepticism?
A. Obscuring uncertainties to seem decisive.
❌ Wrong — hiding uncertainty harms credibility.
B. Clear presentation so others can critically assess ideas.
✅ Correct — clarity enables scrutiny and replication.
C. Replacing evidence with persuasive language.
❌ Wrong — rhetoric can’t replace evidence.
D. Being vague to avoid questions.
❌ Wrong — vagueness prevents meaningful critique.
What must new ideas survive to be accepted?
A. Confident presentation, regardless of clarity.
❌ Wrong — confidence alone is insufficient.
B. Novelty without evidence.
❌ Wrong — novelty is not enough.
C. Alignment with popular opinion.
❌ Wrong — acceptance depends on evidence, not popularity.
D. Clear explanation and scrutiny within the scientific community.
✅ Correct — clarity + evidence under peer scrutiny.