Sunday, February 28, 2010
Research Argument Thesis Statement
The biodiversity of the Appalachian region is very important to the ecosystem as well as to the people who inhabit the region, but the area is being threatened because of numerous human initiated causes. In order to preserve this area we must put an end to the method of clear-cut logging because the habitats in this area depend on its interconnected system. We must put an end to the method of mountain-top removal coal mining because of the result of useless flattened land, water contamination, etc. We must find an alternative to make dams more economically friendly in order to preserve the aquatic life in the rivers and streams in this area. We must change all of these human influences on nature and shift our attention to a more sustainable way of action in order to preserve and cherish the ecosystem.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Argument outline / Thesis
I. Title - The Fight to Stay Fresh
II. Introduction
A. Thesis - Pollution from erosion, pesticides, industrial waste, industrial farming, underground storage container leaks, and mining all effect the quality of our fresh water supply, both above and below the surface. With the population of the world growing, and our need for a continuous supply of fresh water growng all the time, we need to understand why fresh water is important, how we are contaminating it, and what we can do to correct some of the problems associated with our, because it really is "our" water supply.
III. Body
II. Introduction
A. Thesis - Pollution from erosion, pesticides, industrial waste, industrial farming, underground storage container leaks, and mining all effect the quality of our fresh water supply, both above and below the surface. With the population of the world growing, and our need for a continuous supply of fresh water growng all the time, we need to understand why fresh water is important, how we are contaminating it, and what we can do to correct some of the problems associated with our, because it really is "our" water supply.
III. Body
A. Why is fresh water important?
1. Positives (life, health, jobs)
2. Negatives ( cost, energy and money)
3. How much do we need and where does it come from.
B. What kinds of things are causing surface water pollution?
1. Causes: Pesticides, erosion, mining, runoff
2. to be continued...
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
blog post asignment for FI, Monday
Hey,
Your reading so far in FI is p. 3-64. This covers the chapter by the director of the film, an interview with Eric Schlosser, and a chapter on organics by Gary Hirshberg, plus some shorter interchapters. And you have seen the film. So you have two blog prompts, which you can include in one post to your own blog. The total wordage should be no less than 300 words.
First I'd like you to write about the film. I think you might agree that film can be a very powerful medium. It engages viewers differently than alphabetic texts (even with pictures) engage readers. And it educates viewers differently than just words. Focus on one segment of the film that stood out for you and discuss what you learned from it. But also comment on how you learned it, touching on the different expressive and persuasive strategies employed in that segment. Note that aside from filmed sequences, there is animation, text superimposed on images, interviews, archival footage, music, and more. Think about all of the ways the film used to put across its ideas.
Now write about the readings in FI book in contrast, not to find them lacking, but to discuss how these texts--essays and interviews--supplement what you learned in the film. Focus on some specific ideas and quote a couple of chapters to make your points.
Your reading so far in FI is p. 3-64. This covers the chapter by the director of the film, an interview with Eric Schlosser, and a chapter on organics by Gary Hirshberg, plus some shorter interchapters. And you have seen the film. So you have two blog prompts, which you can include in one post to your own blog. The total wordage should be no less than 300 words.
First I'd like you to write about the film. I think you might agree that film can be a very powerful medium. It engages viewers differently than alphabetic texts (even with pictures) engage readers. And it educates viewers differently than just words. Focus on one segment of the film that stood out for you and discuss what you learned from it. But also comment on how you learned it, touching on the different expressive and persuasive strategies employed in that segment. Note that aside from filmed sequences, there is animation, text superimposed on images, interviews, archival footage, music, and more. Think about all of the ways the film used to put across its ideas.
Now write about the readings in FI book in contrast, not to find them lacking, but to discuss how these texts--essays and interviews--supplement what you learned in the film. Focus on some specific ideas and quote a couple of chapters to make your points.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Summarize this!
Summarize this!
Below is a paragraph from the same article. Do not paraphrase it. Instead, summarize it. Boil it down, in your own words to its major points. It should be a lot shorter than the original. And it should be cited.
The word “sustainability” has gotten such a workout lately that the whole concept is in danger of floating away on a sea of inoffensiveness. Everybody, it seems, is for it whatever “it” means. On a recent visit to a land-grant university’s spanking-new sustainability institute, I asked my host how many of the school’s faculty members were involved. She beamed: When letters went out asking who on campus was doing research that might fit under that rubric, virtually everyone replied in the affirmative. What a nice surprise, she suggested. But really, what soul working in agricultural science today (or for that matter in any other field of endeavor) would stand up and be counted as against sustainability? When pesticide makers and genetic engineers cloak themselves in the term, you have to wonder if we haven’t succeeded in defining sustainability down, to paraphrase the late Senator Moynihan, and if it will soon possess all the conceptual force of a word like “natural” or “green” or “nice.”
Below is a paragraph from the same article. Do not paraphrase it. Instead, summarize it. Boil it down, in your own words to its major points. It should be a lot shorter than the original. And it should be cited.
The word “sustainability” has gotten such a workout lately that the whole concept is in danger of floating away on a sea of inoffensiveness. Everybody, it seems, is for it whatever “it” means. On a recent visit to a land-grant university’s spanking-new sustainability institute, I asked my host how many of the school’s faculty members were involved. She beamed: When letters went out asking who on campus was doing research that might fit under that rubric, virtually everyone replied in the affirmative. What a nice surprise, she suggested. But really, what soul working in agricultural science today (or for that matter in any other field of endeavor) would stand up and be counted as against sustainability? When pesticide makers and genetic engineers cloak themselves in the term, you have to wonder if we haven’t succeeded in defining sustainability down, to paraphrase the late Senator Moynihan, and if it will soon possess all the conceptual force of a word like “natural” or “green” or “nice.”
paraphrase this!
Paraphrase this!
From “Our Decrepit Food Factories” by Michael Pollan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/magazine/16wwln-lede-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
From “Our Decrepit Food Factories” by Michael Pollan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/magazine/16wwln-lede-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
Paraphrasing (EE)
(BAD)
According to The Union of Concerned Scientists, they estimate that animals living on factory farms are fed 70 percent of antibiotics used in America. Raising pigs, cattle, or chickens in close and dirty locations wouldn't be possible unless normal feeding antibiotics is used to prevent the animals from dying of diseases. The animals' growth is sped up and it commends their use to industrial agriculture. Without these pharmaceuticals, meat production couldn't be sustained for months.
(GOOD)
Animals that reside on factory farms are fed antibiotics. 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are at these factory farms. Without antibiotics, it would not be easy to raise animals in close quarters because of the infectious diseases. Although, the growth of animals is increased when these antibiotics are used, the production of meat could not be sustained for any amount of time.
According to The Union of Concerned Scientists, they estimate that animals living on factory farms are fed 70 percent of antibiotics used in America. Raising pigs, cattle, or chickens in close and dirty locations wouldn't be possible unless normal feeding antibiotics is used to prevent the animals from dying of diseases. The animals' growth is sped up and it commends their use to industrial agriculture. Without these pharmaceuticals, meat production couldn't be sustained for months.
(GOOD)
Animals that reside on factory farms are fed antibiotics. 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are at these factory farms. Without antibiotics, it would not be easy to raise animals in close quarters because of the infectious diseases. Although, the growth of animals is increased when these antibiotics are used, the production of meat could not be sustained for any amount of time.
FEB. 1
PLAGIARISM
70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. With pigs, chickens and cattle in close and gross confinement it would not be possible without antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. These same drugs speed up the animals’ growth. Meat production practiced on the current scale and with the same intensity we practice it now could not be sustained for months, let alone decade without these pharmaceuticals.
PARAPHRASE
The use of pharmaceuticals in our agriculture is an issue of great concern. Large numbers of animals are raises in very close quarters in order to ensure high levels of production because the demand is also high. Because these animals are raises this way disease and infection begin to appear and because of disease and infection, animals are fed antibiotics and other pharmaceutical drugs to maintain their health and increase their development. When the human population eats the animals, we too are exposed to the same drugs. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nearly 70 percent of pharmaceuticals produced in America are fed to animals in these kinds of factory farms.
70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. With pigs, chickens and cattle in close and gross confinement it would not be possible without antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. These same drugs speed up the animals’ growth. Meat production practiced on the current scale and with the same intensity we practice it now could not be sustained for months, let alone decade without these pharmaceuticals.
PARAPHRASE
The use of pharmaceuticals in our agriculture is an issue of great concern. Large numbers of animals are raises in very close quarters in order to ensure high levels of production because the demand is also high. Because these animals are raises this way disease and infection begin to appear and because of disease and infection, animals are fed antibiotics and other pharmaceutical drugs to maintain their health and increase their development. When the human population eats the animals, we too are exposed to the same drugs. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, nearly 70 percent of pharmaceuticals produced in America are fed to animals in these kinds of factory farms.
Paraphrase This.
From “Our Decrepit Food Factories” by Michael Pollan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/magazine/16wwln-lede-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
The Union of Concerned Scientists state that over 70 percent of animals living in factory farms are fed antibiotics. Without these antibiotics, raising large numbers of pigs, chickens or cattle would simply not be possible in the filthy and confined living conditions they must live in. Livestock would constantly be dying from infectious disease. These antibiotics also speed up animal growth which is also an important trait for the agriculture industry. Without these drugs meat production as it is today could not be maintained for the future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/magazine/16wwln-lede-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
The Union of Concerned Scientists state that over 70 percent of animals living in factory farms are fed antibiotics. Without these antibiotics, raising large numbers of pigs, chickens or cattle would simply not be possible in the filthy and confined living conditions they must live in. Livestock would constantly be dying from infectious disease. These antibiotics also speed up animal growth which is also an important trait for the agriculture industry. Without these drugs meat production as it is today could not be maintained for the future.
Paraphrase this!
Paraphrase this!
From “Our Decrepit Food Factories” by Michael Pollan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/magazine/16wwln-lede-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
From “Our Decrepit Food Factories” by Michael Pollan
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/magazine/16wwln-lede-t.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals’ growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
Summarize this!
Summarize this!
Below is a paragraph from the same article. Do not paraphrase it. Instead, summarize it. Boil it down, in your own words to its major points. It should be a lot shorter than the original. And it should be cited.
The word “sustainability” has gotten such a workout lately that the whole concept is in danger of floating away on a sea of inoffensiveness. Everybody, it seems, is for it whatever “it” means. On a recent visit to a land-grant university’s spanking-new sustainability institute, I asked my host how many of the school’s faculty members were involved. She beamed: When letters went out asking who on campus was doing research that might fit under that rubric, virtually everyone replied in the affirmative. What a nice surprise, she suggested. But really, what soul working in agricultural science today (or for that matter in any other field of endeavor) would stand up and be counted as against sustainability? When pesticide makers and genetic engineers cloak themselves in the term, you have to wonder if we haven’t succeeded in defining sustainability down, to paraphrase the late Senator Moynihan, and if it will soon possess all the conceptual force of a word like “natural” or “green” or “nice.”
Below is a paragraph from the same article. Do not paraphrase it. Instead, summarize it. Boil it down, in your own words to its major points. It should be a lot shorter than the original. And it should be cited.
The word “sustainability” has gotten such a workout lately that the whole concept is in danger of floating away on a sea of inoffensiveness. Everybody, it seems, is for it whatever “it” means. On a recent visit to a land-grant university’s spanking-new sustainability institute, I asked my host how many of the school’s faculty members were involved. She beamed: When letters went out asking who on campus was doing research that might fit under that rubric, virtually everyone replied in the affirmative. What a nice surprise, she suggested. But really, what soul working in agricultural science today (or for that matter in any other field of endeavor) would stand up and be counted as against sustainability? When pesticide makers and genetic engineers cloak themselves in the term, you have to wonder if we haven’t succeeded in defining sustainability down, to paraphrase the late Senator Moynihan, and if it will soon possess all the conceptual force of a word like “natural” or “green” or “nice.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
