I plan on majoring in biology because I didn't know exactly what I had to do to become a pathologist. I'm just going to major in biology to help and hopefully get into med school. They say that you don't necessarily have to major in biology to become a pathologist but I wanted to go that route.
I think that my portfolio is much better than the first one because I put a lot more work into it. I did the work on time and I did it before the due date and not the day of. So I think my grade will be better than before.
The candidates in the presidential election are addressing issues that are important in the future welfare of the United States. Air pollution is one issue that has become a major concern in our society with all the industrial and electrical facilities in the United States. Presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry provide the system they want to employ in order to gradually eliminate air pollution. Bush’s wants to reemphasize the Clear Skies Initiative and the Clean Air Interstate Rule. He also wants to exercise the Mercury Rule to further reduce the amount of mercury in the air. Kerry, on the other hand, wants to reexamine the Clean Air Act and enforce the policy in a stronger, more reliable way. Neither candidates plan entails a clear, decisive system for ensuring that the quality of our air is purer because implementing plans won’t work, but Kerry was state that we need to exert some type of authority if we want air pollution to gradually decrease. The Clear Skies Initiative and the Clean Air Interstate Rule are two proposals prepared during Bush’s term as president to progressively eliminate “the emission of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury” from plants. The Clear Skies Initiative is expected to reduce the emission of these toxins “by 70 percent and help the states meet tougher new air quality standards” (Bush, par 4). The Clean Air Interstate Rule focuses on the nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide released from power plants alone. Bush feels that, over the next ten years, “the steepest emissions cuts” must be enforced in order for this plan to become a success (Bush, par 5). The Mercury Rule is a plan, signed in June 2004, to sanction major electric facilities mercury production, calculate annual discharge, and control the emission thereafter. Through these plans, Bush wants the quality of clean air to increase in the United States and the attribute of public health to advance but it would take ten years for him to do so. Putting caps on mercury emission is the first proposal of this sort by a president, which was proposed by Bush, and he plans to put into effect the idea that derived from his organization. As Kerry stated in the presidential debate on September 30, 2004, Bush’s plan is to do “more of the same”. Kerry; the “environmental champion”, according to the League of Conservation Voters, has one procedure that he wants to execute to obtain a purer quality of air for Americans: the 1990 Clean Air Act (Kerry, par 3). The Clean Air Act is 1990 federal law limiting the amount of pollutants a state is allowed to generate. Kerry plans reinforce this law in a clear-cut, more effective manner contrary to the way the Bush administration applied it. A law is something is not supposed to be broken in this country but in every new one there tends to be some major escape routes from punishment. Since this is a federal law, unlike the ‘proposals’ Bush made in his last term, Kerry feels that reexamining the “loopholes” in it will help in the regulation of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury being released into the air. Once the plugs have been fixed into place, Kerry will “take aggressive action to stop acid rain” (Kerry, par 8). Also, Kerry wants to slow the effects of the global warming through the emission of these toxins by starting “innovative, job-creating programs” that aid in the reduction of these harmful pollutants (Kerry, par 8). According to Kerry, our air is one the important “natural treasures” in the United States and Americans are entitled to breathe clean air (Kerry, par 1). This right is something that should be upheld by the President. Kerry is compelled to eliminate the massive amounts of toxin emission in order to defend our nation’s health from harmful pollutants. Maintaining healthy quality of air is something that neither candidate takes lightly. Both are duty-bound and make arguments to back their policies. Personally, I don’t agree with either candidate on this subject. I feel that neither method will have a major effect on the amount of pollutants released by the United States alone over the next four to ten years. Just putting plans into effect won’t handle the pollution problems in America if there is no action behind them. Neither candidate suggests an action that hinders excess pollution in America, although Kerry says that it must be with some type of force. I do agree with Kerry, we as a nation must “take an aggressive action” if we want pollution to slowly diminish in our country (Kerry, par 8). We cannot just sit around and watch the quality of our air diminish before our eyes and complain about it. If we want pollution to cease in our communities, we, as a nation, must stand up and fight for what we want to be done. As a nation, we must first cut down our contribution to pollution before attacking the big businesses. After we have that under control, we must push for a business pollution reform. We have to push for cleaner air through petitions, protest, etc. If we want a better environmental community for our children and for our future generations, we must put a stop to the pollution that is occurring now. There is not a lot to agree upon in either of the candidate’s formula for environmental improvement, so we cannot really rely on their position if we want the right thing to be done to rid America of some pollutants. We must do what we can to aid in the fight against air pollution and only hope the future president’s plan is as effective as describe it to be.
I'm a really nervous speaker. I'm not really comfortable in front of people. While I'm doing my speech, my ears turn really red, my face gets hot, and I fidget. I sat on the table Tuesday to prevent myself from fidgeting.
Though ethos and logos are important in building my speech, pathos will have to be the most stressed aspect. There's no way to talk about air pollution with facts and statistics and keep the listener's attention. So there's no possible way to avoid the use of pathos because I'm giving the speech to my peers inside of a classroom. (Not Congress)
1. My name is Maria and I read McLain’s paper.
2. What do you think are the most promising counter-arguments to the author’s claim? Have these counter-arguments been acknowledged and dealt with effectively in the paper?
That Bush’s strategy to increase for dual enrollment is more promising than Kerry’s idea for service because it give the student an opportunity to get some electives and other transfer credits out of the way before graduating high school, therefore making college a little shorter. This argument has not been addressed effectively, in that, there is not enough detail as to why this isn’t a better idea than Kerry’s.
3. Does the paper have a tight, cohesive and powerful thesis statement?
Yes, thesis is somewhat cohesive because a few points in the paper contradict the statement. (i.e. Dual enrollment)
4. Does the author make use of the varied rhetorical strategies we discussed in class? Does the author overuse any particular strategy? Does s/he neglect any?
Stastics and comparison are used for making Kerry’s idea look better but some of the comparisons lack the efficient detail to support the claim.
5. Does the author support his or her assumptions and conclusions with authoritative evidence? Identify at least one point that might be supported by additional or alternative types of evidence.
The point that Bush’s plan for dual enrollmmet needs more info to pursuade the reader to believe that it is not better than Kerry’s idea because it contradicts the whole paper.
1. My name is Maria and I read McLain’s paper.
2. Does the paper fulfill the demands of the assignment? Does it recommend a specific course of action relating to the issue?
The paper discusses a specific course of action that Kerry wants for education, which the option of service to the country. It meets the demands of the assignment; however, there does not seem to be enough argument as to why Kerry’s position is more reputable.
3. Does the paper have a tight, cohesive and powerful thesis statement?
The thesis clearly states the issue that is going to be addressed as well as how it will benefit the country more than Bush’s plan.
4. Does the author make use of the varied rhetorical strategies we discussed in class? Does the author overuse any particular strategy? Does s/he neglect any?
Statistics and comparisons are used to support Kerry’s strategy vs. Bush’s strategy. They are just stated in the paper, however, without very much detail as to the importance.
5. Did you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
The paper was not very convincing. The comparison to Bush’s plan is made the argument seem questionable. Leaves reader with the question: which is best? There were a lot of statements about Bush’s plan being worse, but not enough detail to convince the reader fully that Kerry’s is better.
