Business Letters
Essay by review • December 1, 2010 • Study Guide • 692 Words (3 Pages) • 1,206 Views
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. This is partially due to
> the Heavy load our lab must bear in its normal operation, and partly due
> to
...
...