The central claims I found were, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) “would cause effects that would be irreversible, endangering thousands of animals and their fragile ecosystems.” Also that “once the ecosystem is disturbed, it will never return to its original condition.” It is also described that drilling in ANWR would be “a way for us to become “less dependent on fuel from the Middle East.”” Along with would it be worth drilling in ANWR since it would take up to 10 years to finally see the oil we drilled for.
The kinds of research I found in the essay were mainly secondary research. I found a lot of pre-existing information. I found websites, journals, magazines, and news. The author mainly used quotes from the passage she read and copied it into her paper to add a more informative, persuasive mood. Some of the evidence used was fact based such as “Americans use over 16 million barrels of oil per day (Kriz 2).” Where the author just stuck it in a sentence and blended it into her paper. But the author did use the facts she found quite well, she would further explain the quote, further explaining her position on the topic or even go in a different direction, showing a contrasting point of view.
To me this was a very influencing paper. It motivated me in the idea, of keeping the oil production out of ANWR , the idea of using less oil all together, and the finding of a new and better fuel as well as funding the research of it. The author used great statistics of our nation’s use of the oil and how much is actually left. Especially when she said that the oil in ANWR would only be able to supply us for about a few months. I also liked, but was a startling realization, when she said that oil is a nonrenewable resource.
My prior belief and values didn’t really affect the way I read this passage. I am actually for bettering the environment and for finding a new fuel. If anything this passage furthered my position on the topic, it also furthered my interest. I am more curious now to see, especially with the upcoming president, if they will address the topic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
All your points about the ANWR paper are accurate and well-supported. Most every time you make a claim, you back it up with evidence from the text. Your response was formatted a lot differently than mine was, but you pulled it off.
I enjoyed your reading response. Your points were well written and you descibe the evidence in the paper accurately. The only thing is that I thought we had to write about all four articles, which you did not. Other than this, it is very good.
Your points you made about the ANWR paper were somewhat similar to mine, so i would agree with them. Good job using examples directly from the text! Overall, your response is well supported and organized!
Post a Comment