This page holds a finished UNIV-401 Week 7 person-first language pass example, showing a draft re-read only for the words it uses about people while its claims stay where they were. Searches like "univ 401 week 7 assignment example", "univ401 week 7 sample" and "univ-401 week 7 example" land here.
What a finished UNIV-401 Week 7 person-first language pass looks like
Two documents arrive together. The first is the draft with changes marked, so a grader can see the original wording and the replacement in the same place. The second is a short log: the line, what it said, what it says now, and one clause of reason. Entries cover the obvious body-level labels, the group-level sentences that describe a whole population by the thing it suffers, and the places nobody checks, which are headings, figure captions and the sentence introducing a reference list. Material inside quotation marks is left exactly as the source wrote it, with a log entry saying so. Nothing in the document is spoken, and no line of dialogue appears anywhere in it.
How a UNIV-401 Week 7 example is structured
The pass runs in three sweeps rather than one read. The first sweep hunts nouns: any place where a condition, a diagnosis or a circumstance is doing the work of naming a person. The second sweep takes verbs and modifiers, where blame hides in words like refused, failed and compliant. The third sweep leaves the body text entirely and goes to headings, captions, table labels and the reference sentence, which is where a label most often survives an otherwise clean draft. After the sweeps comes the meaning test, reading each changed sentence against its original to confirm the claim did not move. The log is compiled last, and it ends with a short list of wordings that were considered and deliberately kept.
The claims do not move
A language pass that changes what the draft argues has produced a second draft. The sample checks each edited sentence against the original to confirm the meaning held.
Nouns, then verbs, then furniture
Three sweeps in the sample. Labels first, blame-carrying verbs second, and then headings, captions and table labels, which is where old wording survives a clean body.
A reason per change
Every entry in the log carries one clause saying what the change does. Swaps without reasons read as mechanical, and the reasoning row is usually worth more than the edits.
The group-level sentences
A population can be named by its problem just as a person can. The sample marks those lines too, since a clean body with a labeled group has done only half the pass.
What was kept on purpose
The log ends with wordings considered and retained, including anything inside a quotation. Saying why something stayed shows judgment, and it stops a grader assuming it was missed.
Where marks go in UNIV-401 Week 7
A pass that improves the argument while it is at work produces the worst result available, because the submission is then a new draft and the language row has nothing to compare. Close to it is a set of swaps with no reasons attached, which reads as find and replace rather than judgment. A body cleaned while a heading, a caption or a chart label keeps the old wording loses the thoroughness row outright. Mechanical substitution that produces unreadable sentences is marked down as heavily as the original wording was, since readability is part of what the row is buying. And a draft where only the individual labels were hunted, leaving a whole group described as its problem, has done half the week.
Get a UNIV-401 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the draft you want read and the rubric your section uses, and a custom example comes back as a marked copy plus the log, in 24-48h, with the first one free. If you would rather see the method on neutral text than on your own writing, say so and the sample is built on a supplied passage instead.
UNIV-401 Week 7 questions, answered
Is identity-first wording ever the right choice?
Sometimes, and the sample treats it as a decision to be argued rather than a mistake. Some communities state a preference for it plainly, and where a source, a group's own usage or your instructions support that, the log records the reason and the wording stays. What a grader marks down is an unexamined choice in either direction.
Does this count as a revision of the earlier draft?
In most sections it is marked as its own submission, with the earlier document already graded. That is why the claims stay fixed: the week is assessing the reading, not a rewrite. If your section does count it as a revision, ask whether content changes are permitted, and keep them out of the language log either way.
What about wording inside a quotation or a source title?
Left alone. Editing inside quotation marks misrepresents the source, and a title is a title. The sample flags each one in the log, and where the quoted wording is heavy it adds a sentence of its own after the quotation, which shows the writer noticed without altering what somebody else published.