business letters :: essays research papers

The story behind the letter below is that there is this guy in > Newport, RI named Scott Williams who digs things out of his backyard > and sends the stuff he finds to the Smithsonian Institute, labeling > them with scientific names, insisting that they are actual > archaeological finds. This guy really exists and does this in his > spare time. Here's the actual response from the Smithsonian Institution to > one such find. So, the next time you are challenged to respond in >writing..... > ____________________________________________________ > > Smithsonian Institute > 207 Pennsylvania Avenue > Washington, DC 20078 > > Dear Mr. Williams: > > Thank you for your latest submission to the Institute, labeled > "93211-D,layer seven, next to the clothesline post...Hominid skull." > We have given this specimen a careful and detailed examination, and > regret to inform you that we disagree with your theory that it > represents conclusive proof of the presence of Early Man in > Charleston County two million years ago. > > Rather, it appears that what you have found is the head of a Barbie > doll, of the variety that one of our staff, who has small children, > believes to be "Malibu Barbie." It is evident that you have given a > great deal of thought to the analysis of this specimen, and you may > be quite certain that those of us who are familiar with your prior work > in the field were loathe to come to contradiction with your findings. > However, we do feel that there are a number of physical attributes of > the specimen which might have tipped you off to its modern origin: > > 1. The material is molded plastic. Ancient hominid remains are > typically fossilized bone. > > 2. The cranial capacity of the specimen is approximately 9 cubic > centimeters, well below the threshold of even the earliest > identified proto-homonids. > > 3. The dentition pattern evident on the skull is more consistent with > the common domesticated dog than it is with the ravenous > man-eating Pliocene clams you speculate roamed the wetlands during > that time. This latter finding is certainly one of the most > intriguing hypotheses you have submitted in your history with this > institution, but the evidence seems to weigh rather heavily > against it. Without going into too much detail, let us say that: > > A. The specimen looks like the head of a Barbie doll that a > dog has chewed on. > B. Clams don't have teeth. > > It is with feelings tinged with melancholy that we must deny your > request to have the specimen carbon-dated.