Would you rewrite the following statement with your own words?
1.is it becuase it has an unacknowledged hold on so many of us?
2. he would scorn to setle a problem by tossing a coin.
most people keep their terror within bounds, but they connot root it out.
4. when has the heart of given a damn for science?
5. how did the melanesians come by the same idea?
There are so many ways to say the same thing. This is one of the reasons why language is so beautiful. Here are my sentences:
1. Is it because this thing has some sort of control over us in an unknown way?
2. He belittles the issue by trying to settle it with a coin toss.
3. Most people can keep their fears in check, but they are not able to get rid of them totally.
4. When has the heart ever cared about science?
5. How did the Melanesians come to the same point?
How you reword a statement is, as the first answer says, partly a matter of your comfort with the language. But it is also partly a matter of what effect you are trying to achieve -- whether you are trying to be formal or informal. The sentences in the first answer are somewhat formal, I'll provide less formal alternatives.
- Is it because it controls us in some way we don't see?
- He would think tossing a coin to settle an argument is really stupid.
- Most people keep themselves from being too scared but they can't completely get rid of their fears.
- Our emotions don't care about facts.
- How did the Melanesians get to have the same idea?
I think that rewriting statements are dependent on the level of comfort with particular aspects of language. Individiauls' rewriting of language are largely based in part with this inclusion. For example, the first statement could be restated as, "It is because it controls many of us?" The "unacknowledged" is something I read as an issue of "control." For the second statement, the use of "scorn" has to be reconceptualized; "He would look at it with scorn if he had to settle a problem by tossing a coin." For the third, "Most people try to limit their terror, but it is never fully eliminated," helps to bring the idea of striving to eliminate something but never fully accomplishing it. In the fourth statement, one is playing with opposites ("heart" and "science") and wording it can be seen in the same way as the previous statement. Finally, the last statement might want to eliminate the use of "by," with "How did the Melanesians determine the same idea?"