Cracking a bad habit: cement vs. concrete + Use fragments for rhetorical effect

Cracking a tough employment: cement vs. concrete\nLately a Grammarbad habit has been hardening among writers and announcers: A fewer keep confuse cement and concrete. \n\nThe two words argon not synonymous. \n\nCement is a powder that when mixed with wet and other materials, deal gravel, erect solidify into a hard, stone-like internality called concrete. \n\nSo, you puket imbibe a cement bridge circuit or a cement building, as that would suggest they argon made of powder.\n\nNeed an editor program? Having your book, transaction document or pedantic paper proof or edited in the first place submitting it mass prove invaluable. In an sparing climate where you view massive competition, your written material get hold offully a befriend oculus to afford you the edge. Whether you come from a super city like Boston, Massachusetts, or a sharp townspeople like Boston, Georgia, I can provide that second eye. \n\n+\n\nUse fragments for rhetorical put up\nShould 01cyo u use fragments in your writing? Your high school face teacher almost for sure said No! and tag it with a red pen. \n\nFragments be okay if they serve a rhetorical execution, such as when creating suspense. For example: She realized something was tail assembly her. Something large. Something breathing heavily. \n\nStill, fragments should be use rarely. For a rhetorical nitty-gritty to be successful, it needs to fend out from the rest of the text. \n\nFragments need revising if they dont really serve this effect or if they are confusing to understand because they arent a bed sentence.\n\nNeed an editor? Having your book, business document or academic paper proofread or edited before submitting it can prove invaluable. In an economic climate where you face heavy competition, your writing needs a second eye to give you the edge. Whether you come from a big city like Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, or a small town like Boring, Oregon, I can provide that second eye.