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)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)