The argumentative essay is well-constructed, you elaborated on the needs of nuclear power. And then you made your stand by choosing the Very-High-Temperature Reactor as the best reactor out of the 6 choices.
From paragraph 2 to 5, i can clearly see the format of your argumentative essay - supporting reasons for choosing VHTRs, followed by possible counterclaims and your rebuttals for the counterclaims. However, i am not convinced by the third reason. You are supporting your stand that VHTRs should be further funded and researched. How does extensive research and development of materials support your stand? I just find it confusing about this part. Instead, you could say that the basic technology for VHTR systems has already been established in high temperature gas reactor plants. Also, is there a reason for separating your third supporting reason with its counterclaim and rebuttal?
The conclusion is clear. You summarized and reemphasized on the supporting reasons to tell the readers why VHTRs is the best.
Good Job HB!
Alphonsus
Second and third paragraphs are on the financial and political factors. Does the developing countries have an advantage over the emission cut programme? Why is the U.S. having such high emission when it is already so developed, comparing to China? when you mentioned about the sharing of information and knowledge, what kind of information are you referring to? How does it improve efficiency in tackling global warming? About the minimum, yet realistic targets set by countries, any supporting details?
Citings are decently done, just need to take note of para-phrase or putting "" if its a quotation. In the conclusion paragraph, "In my opinion, developed and developing countries should set a realistic target and a little progress along the way is better than no progress at all.", does it really conclude on your topic? Perhaps you can emphasize on the message you want to pass on to your readers. Lastly, from the passage, how will the countries be affected if the treaty is not formed; what will happen to them?
Still! GOOD JOB JH.. keep up the good work =)
Alphonsus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You suggest that instead of using materials as one of the supporting reasons, I should state that basic technology for VHTR systems has already been established. However, technology is a very broad word. In the case of VHTR, technology may consist of materials, temperature control, core design, high fuel burn up etc. Therefore, I think it will be much clearer and precise if I focus on one of the main concern, which is the R&D in materials research. The reason I separate the third supporting reason with its counterclaim and rebuttal is to keep paragraph short. As you can see, if I cramp everything in one paragraph, the paragraph will be very long.
ReplyDelete