predictions of future mainshock Now,based on these assumptions about what deserves stress,here is our proposed revision: Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture.The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are roughly uniform.Therefore,nearly constant time intervals(at first approximation)would be expected between large ruptures of the same fault segment.[However?],the recurrence time may vary;the basic idea of periodic mainshocks may need to be modified if subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault. [Indeed?],the length and slip of great plate boundary ruptures often vary by a factor of 2.[For example?],the recurrence intervals along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault is 145 years with variations of several decades.The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval,the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock. Many problems that had existed in the original have now surfaced for the first time.Is the reason earthquakes do not occur at random intervals stated in the first sentence or in the second?Are the suggested choices of "however,""indeed,"and "for example"the right ones to express the connections at those points?(All these connections were left unarticulated in the original paragraph.)If "for example"is an inaccurate transitional phrase,then exactly how does the San Andreas fault example connect to ruptures that "vary by a factor of 2"?Is the author arguing that recurrence rates must vary because fault movements often vary?Or is the author preparing us for a discussion of how in spite of such variance we might still be able to predict earthquakes?This last question remains unanswered because the final sentence leaves behind earthquakes that recur at variable intervals and switches instead to earthquakes that recur regularly.Given that this is the first paragraph of the article,which type of earthquake will the article most likely proceed to discuss?In sum,we are now aware of how much the paragraph had not communicated to us on first reading.We can see that most of our difficulty was owing not to any deficiency in our reading skills but rather to the author's lack of comprehension of our structural needs as readers. In our experience,the misplacement ofold and new information turns out to be he No.I problem in American professional writing today. In our experience,the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be the No.1 problem in American professional writing today.The source of the problem is not hard to discover:Most writers produce prose linearly(from left to right)and through time.As they begin to formulate a sentence,often their primary anxiety is to capture the important new thought before it escapes.Quite naturally they rush to record that new information on paper,after which they can produce at their leisure contextualizing material that links back to the previous discourse.Writers who do this consistently are attending more to their own need for unburdening themselves of their information than to the reader's need for receiving the material.The methodology of reader expectations articulates the reader's needs explicitly,therebypredictions of future mainshock Now, based on these assumptions about what deserves stress, here is our proposed revision: Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are roughly uniform. Therefore, nearly constant time intervals (at first approximation) would be expected between large ruptures of the same fault segment. [However?], the recurrence time may vary; the basic idea of periodic mainshocks may need to be modified if subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault. [Indeed?], the length and slip of great plate boundary ruptures often vary by a factor of 2. [For example?], the recurrence intervals along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock. Many problems that had existed in the original have now surfaced for the first time. Is the reason earthquakes do not occur at random intervals stated in the first sentence or in the second? Are the suggested choices of "however," "indeed," and "for example" the right ones to express the connections at those points? (All these connections were left unarticulated in the original paragraph.) If "for example" is an inaccurate transitional phrase, then exactly how does the San Andreas fault example connect to ruptures that "vary by a factor of 2"? Is the author arguing that recurrence rates must vary because fault movements often vary? Or is the author preparing us for a discussion of how in spite of such variance we might still be able to predict earthquakes? This last question remains unanswered because the final sentence leaves behind earthquakes that recur at variable intervals and switches instead to earthquakes that recur regularly. Given that this is the first paragraph of the article, which type of earthquake will the article most likely proceed to discuss? In sum, we are now aware of how much the paragraph had not communicated to us on first reading. We can see that most of our difficulty was owing not to any deficiency in our reading skills but rather to the author’s lack of comprehension of our structural needs as readers. In our experience, the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be he No. 1 problem in American professional writing today. In our experience, the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be the No. 1 problem in American professional writing today. The source of the problem is not hard to discover: Most writers produce prose linearly (from left to right) and through time. As they begin to formulate a sentence, often their primary anxiety is to capture the important new thought before it escapes. Quite naturally they rush to record that new information on paper, after which they can produce at their leisure contextualizing material that links back to the previous discourse. Writers who do this consistently are attending more to their own need for unburdening themselves of their information than to the reader’s need for receiving the material. The methodology of reader expectations articulates the reader’s needs explicitly, thereby