Topical Persistence Example

Here's an original paragraph that we'll assess for topical persistence.

Based on access to new technologies, the Centers for Disease Control identified the microorganism responsible for eurythromicotic sarcoma. Forty microbiologists worked on the project. Each researcher had access to an electron microscope, which offered a means of quick and accurate detection. While it was very difficult to isolate this microorganism, it was susceptible to a new staining agent that allowed more accurate visual assessment. The agent also allowed researchers to isolate several viable colonies of the microorganism. These colonies reacted well in new growth mixtures composed of agar and blood serum from selected carriers. Over five months of study was necessary to identify this microorganism.

Here's how one might evaluate this paragraph. Note that I use some terms a little less strictly than some "English" teachers. For example, the following table sometimes "reconstructs" sentences out of phrases that more accurately catalog the original sentence's meaning or intention.

Once you have cataloged the major sentence elements, or (ideally) before you do so, you need to make some decisions, at a fairly high linguistic level, about what you believe the "topic" of the paragraph, or other grammatical unit, to be.

While this text could have several interpretations (the commitment of resources for identifying an organism, the role of new technological developments in organism identification) you must eventually decide which authorial intention is most likely, given the evidence you have before you.

For my interpretation I elected to assume that the author wanted the reader to appreciate the role of emerging technologies in microorganism identification. Notice that accepting this premise calls at least two sentences in the original passage (highlighted in the following table) into question: do we need to know how many researchers worked on the project or how long it took to complete? Those, I'd argue, are management issues and have little to do with identifying the microorganism.

Subject	Verb	Object
CDC	identified	microorganism
microbiologists	worked	project
researcher	had	microscope
microscope	(helped identify)	(microorganism)
(new) staining agent	(helped) detect	(microorganism)
(new staining) agent	helped	researchers
researchers	isolated	microorganism (colonies)
colonies	reacted to	(new) growth medium
months	to identify	microorganism

The remaining "major " topics that support the revised topic—new technologies helped the CDC identify a specific microorganism—include a staining agent, a growth medium, and an electron microscope. These remaining topics still need to be presented in a specific order. That is, you have to grow a microorganism before you can stain and observe it. So the new order looks something like:

Subject	Verb	Object
CDC	identified	microorganism
researcher	had	microscope
new growth medium	cultivated	colonies
new staining agent	provided	visibility
electron microscopy	allowed	viewing

[return to top]

Possible Response to Topical Persistence Exercise

Here's the revision this process might get us:

Using new technologies, the Centers for Disease Control identified the microorganism responsible for eurythromicotic sarcoma. After developing a new growth medium composed of agar and blood serum from selected carriers, microbiologists cultivated several suspect colonies. These colonies proved susceptible to a new staining agent that allowed more accurate visual assessment by electron microscopy.

[return to top]

What it all means for you, as a writer

Admittedly, this process requires a great deal of time and effort; at least, at first! But, with time, and repetition, you will begin to recognize the major topic, and its supporting elements, in any text. By the way, this outlining process is only a way to demonstrate the method; you need NOT complete such a table to assess persistence of topic!

What really changes in this process?

Well, if you consider audience expectations, the two texts do require some specialized vocabulary and knowledge; so, the audience changes very little. If you are interested in assessing readability with any readability formula, you will discover that the text have the same "readability index."

But, you will also notice that the agent for each action is obvious and that the logic—growth, staining, identification—is also more obvious.

Finally, you will notice that each sentence introduces a new idea, and the relationship between sentences is made apparent.

[return to top]