Thanks for the comment Senlin. Regarding the contradiction you mentioned, I was trying to bring out the difficulties in carrying them out, notably the political impasse and difficulties in execution. They are susposed to act like a counter point. Perhaps that acted as a distraction, I will cancel them out.
You are right regarding the structure, my first point is its effectiveness and second is its practicality. As for the part about repetition of effectiveness, it is partly due to the difficulty in seperating the two concepts, as practicality justifies the expectation for its effectiveness. Perhaps I can make it clearer.
Thats all, Thanks for the comment!
By Sue Ben
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
comment on Ben's WA1 by senlin(2)
Hi handsome Ben, after I went through your essay, I admit that your idea is clear and the structure is complete. It is very good as a whole.
At the beginning, you gave a very specific thesis statement, which is “the authors are calling for an integrated approach to see climate change as one problem for both nature and people”. And then you wrote “In this article, I will discuss two reasons the authors give in support of their case.” Just from this, I can already get your main idea and your structures easily and clearly.
For the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, you discussed the two reasons separately. The first reason, I think, should be the high effectiveness of this method. To support this, you cited many datas and gave enough examples, so I believe it is convincing. The second reason you wrote is that it is practical. However, in your argument, I see you are still talking about the effectiveness, so I feel you repeated your 1st reason to some extent without consciousness.
In your 4th paragraph you wrote that there is no practical means now, which seems to contradict your 2nd reason. So I think it is no good pointing out this fact and you may just delete it.
For your conclusion, you reaffirmed the benefit and feasibility of the integrated method, and this can be a good summary of your essay.
As for your language, there is nearly no grammar mistakes and your vocabulary is quite abundant. Your essay is easy to understand, however, to be honest, I found this essay is more like the summary of your reference article after I read it carefully.
(hope that my review can help you)
At the beginning, you gave a very specific thesis statement, which is “the authors are calling for an integrated approach to see climate change as one problem for both nature and people”. And then you wrote “In this article, I will discuss two reasons the authors give in support of their case.” Just from this, I can already get your main idea and your structures easily and clearly.
For the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, you discussed the two reasons separately. The first reason, I think, should be the high effectiveness of this method. To support this, you cited many datas and gave enough examples, so I believe it is convincing. The second reason you wrote is that it is practical. However, in your argument, I see you are still talking about the effectiveness, so I feel you repeated your 1st reason to some extent without consciousness.
In your 4th paragraph you wrote that there is no practical means now, which seems to contradict your 2nd reason. So I think it is no good pointing out this fact and you may just delete it.
For your conclusion, you reaffirmed the benefit and feasibility of the integrated method, and this can be a good summary of your essay.
As for your language, there is nearly no grammar mistakes and your vocabulary is quite abundant. Your essay is easy to understand, however, to be honest, I found this essay is more like the summary of your reference article after I read it carefully.
(hope that my review can help you)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Comment on Utshash Das's WA1
By Tan Sue Ben
The essay gives a good general understanding of the credentials required as an effective leader to steer the global discussion on global warming. It also underlines the impasse that had plagued previous conferences, the difficulty of reaching a common consensus due to different expectations and demands from various countries. I totally agree with the commitment part, and believe that it should be one of the crucial criteria considered in choosing global leaders in handling this thorny issue.
It would be good, however, to point out that the success of the negotiator will be closely tied to the agreements member countries have signed. You mentioned the importance of forceful approaches to push non-popular measures forward, and this depends on the power given to the negotiator to bargain. The recent non-legally binding Copenhagen accord will no doubt fall short in this aspect. It would be interesting if this part can be elaborated more.
Lastly, the general flow of the essay is good. Just some minor grammatical errors.
The essay gives a good general understanding of the credentials required as an effective leader to steer the global discussion on global warming. It also underlines the impasse that had plagued previous conferences, the difficulty of reaching a common consensus due to different expectations and demands from various countries. I totally agree with the commitment part, and believe that it should be one of the crucial criteria considered in choosing global leaders in handling this thorny issue.
It would be good, however, to point out that the success of the negotiator will be closely tied to the agreements member countries have signed. You mentioned the importance of forceful approaches to push non-popular measures forward, and this depends on the power given to the negotiator to bargain. The recent non-legally binding Copenhagen accord will no doubt fall short in this aspect. It would be interesting if this part can be elaborated more.
Lastly, the general flow of the essay is good. Just some minor grammatical errors.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Comment sanjeet singh's summary on the article A force to fight global warming by Turner, Oppenheimer, & Wilcove (2009),
Dear Sanjeet Singh,
You did a great job on summarising the article that you used on your writing assignment 1. I will be commenting on your summary paragraph by paragraph.
In 2nd paragraph, you summarised what the first argument put forth by the authors essentially. But you just wrote that "2 gigatonnes of carbon can be removed from the atmosphere annually by ecosystems and reforestation." I feel you should have added in the extra point on how much passenger vehicles emit just to show that the 2 gigatonnes of carbon is a significant amount.
For paragraph 3, I felt you could have added in the point that the restoration of ecosystems have the potential to remain as our only viable option to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the decades to come on a large scale basis.
As for your 4th paragraph, you wrote "Restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals regain destroyed homes". I believe it should be written as restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals to regain destroyed homes. A missing word can destroy what would be a good sentence. For the example you cited in this paragraph, i felt you should have talked about how something as minute as a crustacean can be so beneficial to mankind, what more larger organisms.
As for your final paragraph, I feel this paragraph does enough to sum up what the authors in the article is writing. Good job sanjeet.
You did a great job on summarising the article that you used on your writing assignment 1. I will be commenting on your summary paragraph by paragraph.
In 2nd paragraph, you summarised what the first argument put forth by the authors essentially. But you just wrote that "2 gigatonnes of carbon can be removed from the atmosphere annually by ecosystems and reforestation." I feel you should have added in the extra point on how much passenger vehicles emit just to show that the 2 gigatonnes of carbon is a significant amount.
For paragraph 3, I felt you could have added in the point that the restoration of ecosystems have the potential to remain as our only viable option to remove carbon from the atmosphere in the decades to come on a large scale basis.
As for your 4th paragraph, you wrote "Restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals regain destroyed homes". I believe it should be written as restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals to regain destroyed homes. A missing word can destroy what would be a good sentence. For the example you cited in this paragraph, i felt you should have talked about how something as minute as a crustacean can be so beneficial to mankind, what more larger organisms.
As for your final paragraph, I feel this paragraph does enough to sum up what the authors in the article is writing. Good job sanjeet.
Comment on sanjeet singh's peer review by nicodemus yu
Dearest Sanjeet Singh
I have read your comments and agree with you completely. The reason why my essay is unclear is due to the fact that i did not understand what the question was asking for and what the article was about. Now that i have a deeper understanding of what is required of me, coupled with your advice, I will be able to get my final draft done. I will go on to use 2 completely different arguments. With my newfound knowledge of the article, I can use the correct arguments and justify why the authors say so. Firstly is that ecosystems have the ability to remove carbon from the environment and that it is easier, less expensive and least dangerous by using ecosystems to reduce carbon. With these 2 arguments, my new look essay will be able to answer what the question is asking for. Thank you very much for the advice and review. I will work on my final draft.
I have read your comments and agree with you completely. The reason why my essay is unclear is due to the fact that i did not understand what the question was asking for and what the article was about. Now that i have a deeper understanding of what is required of me, coupled with your advice, I will be able to get my final draft done. I will go on to use 2 completely different arguments. With my newfound knowledge of the article, I can use the correct arguments and justify why the authors say so. Firstly is that ecosystems have the ability to remove carbon from the environment and that it is easier, less expensive and least dangerous by using ecosystems to reduce carbon. With these 2 arguments, my new look essay will be able to answer what the question is asking for. Thank you very much for the advice and review. I will work on my final draft.
Summary of A force to fight global warming Turner, Oppenheimer, & Wilcove (2009) by Sanjeet Singh POSTING 4
In the article, A force to fight global warming Turner, Oppenheimer, & Wilcove (2009), the authors call for greater use of natural ecosystems and biodiversity “to slow climate change and lessen its effects on people”. One example the authors used is the initiative to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). The article sees climate change as one problem for both nature and people.
Firstly, the authors say that protection of our ecosystems and reforestation efforts should be made around the world to reduce the existing amount of carbon in the air. It states that 2 gigatonnes of carbon can be removed from the atmosphere annually by ecosystems and reforestation. Restoration of degraded land to their original state also reduces carbon emissions.
Secondly, the article talks about preserving the natural ecosystems and biodiversity as a cheap and easy way as it will not pose as a financial difficulty as not much technology is required in the process. Degraded land is readily available for reforestation. Thus, this is one of the cheapest, safest and easiest solutions available. ) The cost of losing our natural environment is much more compared to the cost of restoring them.
Thirdly, Conserving ecosystems and biodiversity is more than just a fight to prevent global warming. It saves our livelihood too. The impact of natural disasters can be reduced by conserving mangrove forests and coral reefs that would act as a buffer against the storms. Restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals regain destroyed homes and improve the water quality in that region. Unexplored biodiversity can aid in our livelihood too. For example, discovery of an enzyme from the gut of a marine crustacean is able to break down agricultural waste products for biofuels without compromising agricultural land and natural habitats.
Hence, ecosystems are vital for our survival and will help to protect us in times natural disasters. When people help to protect the environment, we reduce carbon emission which is a serious cause of global warming and climate change.
Firstly, the authors say that protection of our ecosystems and reforestation efforts should be made around the world to reduce the existing amount of carbon in the air. It states that 2 gigatonnes of carbon can be removed from the atmosphere annually by ecosystems and reforestation. Restoration of degraded land to their original state also reduces carbon emissions.
Secondly, the article talks about preserving the natural ecosystems and biodiversity as a cheap and easy way as it will not pose as a financial difficulty as not much technology is required in the process. Degraded land is readily available for reforestation. Thus, this is one of the cheapest, safest and easiest solutions available. ) The cost of losing our natural environment is much more compared to the cost of restoring them.
Thirdly, Conserving ecosystems and biodiversity is more than just a fight to prevent global warming. It saves our livelihood too. The impact of natural disasters can be reduced by conserving mangrove forests and coral reefs that would act as a buffer against the storms. Restoring ecosystems also provide jobs for the locals regain destroyed homes and improve the water quality in that region. Unexplored biodiversity can aid in our livelihood too. For example, discovery of an enzyme from the gut of a marine crustacean is able to break down agricultural waste products for biofuels without compromising agricultural land and natural habitats.
Hence, ecosystems are vital for our survival and will help to protect us in times natural disasters. When people help to protect the environment, we reduce carbon emission which is a serious cause of global warming and climate change.
Comment on Nico's Peer Review For WA1 by Sanjeet POSTING 3
DEAR Nicodemus, I have read your comment on my essay and I find it to be unique. I agree with you that the issues discussed are in line with what the authors are writing in the article. The sentence that you are unable to understand is actually a mistake of mine in the essay. That sentence was actually a fragment hence you could not understand it. There is in fact no link between India and the USA in this example. They are actually two separate examples. I apologize for the confusion caused. I believe that your point about giving a rough idea about the points discussed in the essay is a good and valid point. Hence I would be roughly stating my points of argument in the final draft.
I disagree with you about not discussing the gist about the authors arguments as I have stated my points clearly before stating all the examples I have used. I agree that I have used many examples in this essay and the reason being I was doing research to get more in touch about what the article is talking about.
Thank you very much for your comments and I will use them to work on my final draft.
I disagree with you about not discussing the gist about the authors arguments as I have stated my points clearly before stating all the examples I have used. I agree that I have used many examples in this essay and the reason being I was doing research to get more in touch about what the article is talking about.
Thank you very much for your comments and I will use them to work on my final draft.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)