Revised Paragraph

Original: 

The collective thinking in ants is engrained in their genetics (Johnson 194). Each ant had their own specializations whether they were ensuring the queen, who lays the eggs of the next generation of ants, was safe or they were transporting food. The intelligence of the ants is in their productiveness at their discipline. If each ant is excelling at whatever their job is results in a cohesive unit and a sufficient harvest ant colony.

In a harvester ant colony, many feet of intricate tunnels and chambers and thousands of

ants separate the queen, surrounded by interior workers, from the ants working outside

the nest and using only the chambers near the surface…The harvester ants that carry the

queen off to her escape do not do it because they've been ordered by their leader, they do

it because the queen ant is responsible for giving birth to all the members of the colony,

and so it’s only in the colony’s best interest—and the colony’s gene pool—to keep the

queen safe. Their genes instruct them to protect their mother, the same way their genes

instruct them to forage for food. (Johnson 194)

Each ant’s job is assigned by their genetics; and because of these genes, each ant is intelligent in the sense that they are practically programmed to do their job well. They do not have a monarch in place ordering them about. Each job has an integral part in the success of the ant colony. In order for the an colony to thrive, each ant has to be as efficient as possible in their given task. The ones foraging for food need to gather enough food. The ones protecting the queen must ensure she is kept safe. If each ant were not thinking collectively, doing their job sufficiently; say the queen was not protected well enough and something happened to her, the ant colony would be fall into disarray, and their lack of a queen to lay eggs would result in them dying out and not having a future generation.

Revision:

A harvest ant colony’s survival and prosperity relies on the collective and individual intelligences of its ants. The collective thinking in ants is engrained in their genetics (Johnson 194). Each ant had their own specializations whether they were gathering food or were ensuring no harm comes to the queen, who lays the eggs for the next generation of ants. The intelligence of the ants is in its productiveness at its discipline. If each ant is excelling at whatever their job is results in a cohesive unit and a sufficient harvest ant colony:

In a harvester ant colony, many feet of intricate tunnels and chambers and thousands of

ants separate the queen, surrounded by interior workers, from the ants working outside

the nest and using only the chambers near the surface…The harvester ants that carry the

queen off to her escape do not do it because they've been ordered by their leader, they do

it because the queen ant is responsible for giving birth to all the members of the colony,

and so it’s only in the colony’s best interest—and the colony’s gene pool—to keep the

queen safe. Their genes instruct them to protect their mother, the same way their genes

instruct them to forage for food. (Johnson 194)

Each ant’s job is assigned by genetics; because of these genes, basically each ant’s individual agency is engrained in its DNA to succeed at its job. Each job has an integral part in the success of the ant colony. In order for the ant colony to thrive, each ant has to be as efficient as possible in its given task. The ones foraging for food need to gather enough food. The ones protecting the queen must ensure she is kept safe. However if each ant is not as sufficient as it should be the colony suffers. If the ants foraging for food were unsuccessful in retrieving enough to sustain the colony, the ants die. If the queen is not protected well enough and something happens to her the ant colony will fall into disarray, and its lack of a queen would result in them dying out and not having a future generation.

The peer reviews gave me two different outlooks on my paper which allowed me to revise my paragraph better. One reviewer helped me fix my syntax and other grammar errors so my paragraph became clearer. The other reviewer commented on how my paragraphs did not necessarily relate and explain my thesis well even though they had examples and evidence. As a result I went into more detail explaining how my evidence and examples relate to the thesis of my paper in order to further support it.