Am I bad at outlining chapters?

Am I bad at outlining chapters? Topic: English information and ideas writing a book
June 25, 2019 / By Almira
Question: In my history class, my teacher has us outline the chapters. They are about 20 pages long, and she assigns about 10 at a time. By the time I'm done, I have a huge thick outline, as opposed to everyone else who seems to have only written four pages. Yes, I do have big handwriting, but even tonight, I decided to write extremely small, and I have about 3 pages written for 3 pages of the book. Am I bad at outlining? I'm not writing unnecessary stuff (I think) but I'm also afraid to miss anything because she gives us open notebook quizzes. Please help.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Am I bad at outlining chapters?

Valentine Valentine | 8 days ago
It sounds like you are copying (plagiarizing) the assignment - not outlining it. An outline contains: I. The main points (find the subtitles or boldfaced section headings). A. The sub points (read each paragraph, find the main idea, and rewrite it in your own words). 1. Occasionally details (if a paragraph contains important information or lists, you can add them as sub - sub points, but they should only be brief -1 to 3 words- at this point). When you write like this, it should (eventually) take you less time, you should be able to retain more of the information, and you should be able to find the information you need more quickly during the test. It will also help you when you are writing book reports, taking notes for other reports, and with other writing assignments. There are books at the library about writing outlines but most of them will talk about how to write an outline in order to plan writing something else. These may still be helpful for you to read. You can also check out some elementary level (4th - 6th grade) language arts (English) books that may also have chapters about outlines if you need more help.
👍 244 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Am I bad at outlining chapters? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: English information and ideas writing a book

Valentine Originally Answered: Why does Bible has Protestant (66 chapters), Catholic (73 Chapters), and Orthodox (78 chapters)?
Actually, what you refer to as a prohibition against adding to or taking away is a prohibition in St. John's Apocalypse not to add or take away from his prophecy and is not speaking of the Bible as there would not be a Bible for almost 400 years hence. In first century Jerusalem there were at least four OT Canons in use by different Jewish Groups. There was the Canon of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Ethiopian Jews and the Diaspora/Essene Jews. Jesus and the disciples used the Septuagint which was the Canon of the Diaspora/Essenes. We know this because it is quoted in the New Testament. This Canon continued to be the Canon of Christians until after the Reformation and, in fact until about 200 years ago when the Protestants adopted a condensed version of the Canon eliminating the Deuterocanonicals from their Bibles. Even the AKJ originally contained the complete Christian Canon. It has been said by critics of Christ’s Church that the Deuterocanonicals were never believed to be inspired and just the opposite is true. The decision by Christians as to which books are inspired and useful for teaching was decided at the African Synods in the late fourth and early fifth century. There was never a question about their inspiration. The OT Canon chosen by the Protestants is actually a Jewish Canon not chosen by the Jews until after the establishment of Christianity as a result of the spread of Christianity to slow the growth of the new group in Jerusalem after the fall of the Temple in 70AD. Until then as I said previously there were many Canons in use. The adoption of the Canon missing the Deuterocanonicals united the Jews against the Christians was decided in the Jewish Council of Jamnia because the Deuterocanonicals referred too strongly to the Messiah fulfilled in Christ. Some Protestants will claim that only the Jews have the authority to choose Canon but the Church deferred that decision to Christ and the disciples and it is clear through biblical research, that the Septuagint is the Bible used by the first century Church and quoted in the NT Scriptures. The fact that Protestants choose to adopt the Canon that was approved by the same Jews that accused our Lord that resulted in His crucifixion suggests the source of this confusion as from the father of lies who led the Pharisees to accuse Christ and petition for His punishment. It is another way that Satan divides the body of Christ and separates the faithful denying Christ’s prayer that we all be one in Christ through His Church. The Christian Church has always used the Septuagint as Canon and never the truncated version of modernist Protestants. Some Protestants erroneously believe that Catholics added to the Bible with the Deuterocanonicals but this shows an ignorance of their own history and the history of Christianity as witnessed by Christ’s Church. The facts are that the Protestants removed the Deuterocanonicals and even considered strongly to remove some of the NT books currently in use by Protestants and Catholics. Fr. Martin Luther was in favor of removing the book of James because it conflicted with His heretical man made doctrines of the “Solas”, Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. The heretic Ulrich Zwingli wanted to remove the Gospel of John because of its teaching of the commandment to Eat Christ’s Body and drink His Blood which contradicted his view of a real absence of Christ instead of a real presence in the Eucharist. Even Fr. Martin Luther could not endorse such a departure from Scriptures and deny that Christ is truly and really present in the Eucharist in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. In Christ Fr. Joseph
Valentine Originally Answered: Why does Bible has Protestant (66 chapters), Catholic (73 Chapters), and Orthodox (78 chapters)?
The difference between the Catholic and Protestant canons of the Bible arose during the reformation in the 16th century. Until that time there had been near-universal agreement that the Old Testament canon should be based upon the Septuagint, which was the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures. But the protestant reformers decided that they prefered to trust the Hebrew version, which contained less books and also omitted sections of the Book of Daniel. Some relegated the extra books (which they called the Apocrypha) to an appendix whilst others excluded them altogether. I can't say so much about the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox bibles. I knew that the Orthodox include several extra books, and this is a genuinely ancient tradition, but I am not sure what their historical justification is for this.
Valentine Originally Answered: Why does Bible has Protestant (66 chapters), Catholic (73 Chapters), and Orthodox (78 chapters)?
Who: 66-Book: Puritans were the first to produce a Bible that had only 66 books (in the 1590s) (Source: HarperCollins Bible Dictionary) They, unlike earlier Protestants, believed that the Scriptures of the Apocrypha *should not* be included in The Bible. In response, a law was enacted in England in the early 1600s *prohibiting* the publication of any Bible without the Apocrypha. However, that law did not last, and in the 1700s more Bibles were produced without the Apocrypha. The practice caught on among many other Protestant sects and in many other languages. By the 1800s, most English Bibles did not include the Apocrypha. Roman Catholic: 72 of the 73 books were established as "canonical" at the council of Carthage in 397 C.E. This was a gathering of most of the leaders (bishops) of the Christian Church of that time. They considered all of the available Scriptures and evaluated their authenticity. By vote, they selected which Scriptures they believed to be authentic. The 73rd book (Baruch) was approved at the earlier council of Laodicea, but was for some reason (I'm not sure what reason) overlooked at Hippo and Carthage, and also by the Decretum Gelasianum. Nevertheless, the oldest complete Latin Vulgate known - the 8th century Codex Amiatinus - follows the Carthage biblical canon (leaves out Baruch). By the 1500s Baruch was a standard part of the Latin Vulgate, and it was made a part of The Bible formally in 1564 at the Roman Catholic council of Trent. Orthodox - like the Roman Catholics, the Bibles of the Eastern Orthodox Church start with the council of Carthage and add Scriptures to that. Different churches of the Eastern Orthodox Church have added different Scriptures that they consider authentic, based on The Bible in each patriarchate that has been "blessed" by the Patriarch. This will give you some idea of which books are accepted by which groups of the Eastern Orthodox Church. http://www.bible-reviews.com/charts_scriptures_d.html The Oriental Orthodox Church, like the Eastern Orthodox Church, has not determined as a group which books should belong in The Bible, so each of those separate churches has likewise added whatever books that the group believes is authentic. I believe that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has the largest Biblical canon, including several books that are not a part of any other Biblical canon. Why: books were *formally* added when they were believed to be authentic religious documents. They were removed only once - by those Protestants who removed the Apocrypha. You asked: I thought making any changes to the scripture was prohibited Changes have not been made to the Scriptures. Some are included in The Bible, some are not, but in either case changes were not made in recorded history. You asked: where did these texts all came from? All were present and available in the 4th century when the Christian church of the time (it was a unified church then) decided what Scriptures should be considered authentic. Some (like Baruch) were inexplicably overlooked at Hippo and Carthage - there is no mention of it. Others, like 3 & 4 Maccabees, were probably not widely available - or at least not available in Latin, even though they had been written hundreds of years earlier. They were considered and added later by the Greek-speaking progenitors of the Eastern Orthodox Church (the 5th-century Greek Codex Alexandrinus includes them). Let me explain another way: once the council of Carthage had established the basis, certain church leaders (not in council) considered additional books that were not considered at the council of Carthage. Some of those (like 3 & 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151) were added by those leaders who believed they were authentic. You asked: Where did apocrypha came from From the very same sources. The Apocrypha are all Jewish Scriptures - a very few probably originally written in Greek, but most originally in Hebrew and Aramaic. 3 of them have been found in Hebrew or Aramaic among the Dead Sea Scrolls. As you can see from the above link, all except 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees and the book of Wisdom were written long before the time of Jesus. Even those 4 last books were definitely written before the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem - that is, before the year 70, more than 300 years before the council of Carthage. Jim

Roly Roly
It seems like you are trying to write down too much. try to limit yourself to 7 words per number / bullet or whatever you use and 4 bullets per section.
👍 100 | 👎 2

Roly Originally Answered: Book Recommendations for Outlining Marxist Ideology?
I'd recommend: Great Political Thinkers, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Mill & Marx by Keith Thomas, Quentin Skinner et al. Marx & Engels - The Communist Manifesto - it's really short & outlines some of Marx's ideas. And Francis Wheen - Karl Marx is a fascinating account of his life & contains some of his more important ideas. For Lenin - What is to be done? and the April Thesis by Lenin is also a short & easy read. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo... http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/wo... And Robert Service's biography - Lenin, A Biography - is superb. For a comparison of Marx's thought & Lenin's policies I'd recommend reading: Russia in Revolution by Lionel Kochan it has some of Lenin's interpretations of Marxism, as does: The Soviet Union 1917 - 1991 by Martin MacCauley, but the most in depth account of the way that Lenin interpreted and adapted Marxism to the Russian situation is Leonard Shapiro's: The Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Also you could try reading Roy Medvedev's: The October Revolution. It is a bit biased (Medvedev was a loyal Soviet Historian), but it does contain some fascinating insights into the way the Bolsheviks adapted their programmes to the changing political realities of being in power.
Roly Originally Answered: Book Recommendations for Outlining Marxist Ideology?
Have you read the Communist Manifesto? Lenin's Tomb might be useful too. Marx believed that there should be a long period of Capitalism before the switch to Communism happened. Lenin felt he could skip Capitalism and go straight to Communism. That's just the beginning of their differences. Lenin made a mockery of of Marx's beliefs. Read the Communist Manifesto and compare it to what Lenin did in these books as well as the "April Theses" Read Lenin's "April Theses" as well. That should help you a ton.

If you have your own answer to the question english information and ideas writing a book, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.