Business Letters

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