1. The text below has grammatical and mechanical errors and mistakes. Re-write it correctly following the qualities of good writing. Highlight the corrected sections.
(25 marks)

Scientists and philosophers of science tend to speak as if “scientific language” were intrinsically precise as if those who use it must understand one another’s meaning even if they disagree but in fact scientific language is not as different from ordinary language as is commonly believed it too is subject to imprecision and ambiguity and hence to imperfect understanding moreover new theories or arguments are rarely if ever constructed by way of clear-cut steps of induction deduction and verification or falsification neither are they defended rejected or accepted in so straightforward a manner in practice scientists combine the rules of scientific methodology with a generous admixture of intuition aesthetics and philosophical commitment the importance of what are sometimes called extra-rational or extra-logical components of thought in the discovery of a new principle or law is generally acknowledged …but the role of these extra-logical components in persuasion and acceptance in making an argument convincing is less frequently discussed partly because they are less visible the ways in which the credibility or effectiveness of an argument depends on the realm of common experiences on extensive practice in communicating those experiences in a common language are hard to see precisely because such commonalities are taken for granted only when we step out of such a “consensual domain” when we can stand out on the periphery of a community with a common language do we begin to become aware of the unarticulated premises mutual understandings and assumed practices of the group even in those subjects that lend themselves most readily to quantification discourse depends heavily on conventions and interpretation conventions that are acquired over years of practice and participation in a community.