Tuesday, January 29, 2008
persuasive essays
Choose and read one pair from the persuasive essays on the classroom wall. Explain which opinion you agree with, and why. Did either of the essays change your mind from before? Or did it reinforce how you already felt? Give specific examples from the essays, but DO NO REFER TO THE WRITERS BY NAME here. Refer to the writer displayed on top as A and to the one below as B.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
I read the pair of persuasive essays on plastic bags. I strongly agree with person B's point of view, it definitley changed my mind about plastic bags, especially when it mentioned that plastic takes less energy to recycle.
Person A made me changed my mind of animal testing. before I used to think animal testing is bad, but now, A convinced me to support animal testing. I changed my mind because the reasons A gave is very reasonable, for example, she says that there are ways to make the animals suffer less during a testing or experiments.
I read the pros and cons about cloning and I agree with B, the essay against cloning. I agree with the writer because cloning does take a lot of lives and time just to create a double. And the copy usually has problems with its body or mind since it isn't a perfect doppleganger of the original. I had thought this before but the evidence reinforced my opinion.
I read the pair arguing whether paper or plastic grocery bags should be used. I always thought that paper bags would've been better, since they are easier to recycle, but I was convinced otherwise. Reader A (for plastic) proved that paper bags use "twice as many thermal units to be recycled" than plastic bags. I now agree now on using plastic bags when buying goods.
I read the essays about for and against lowering the driving age. I agree with the essay against lowering the driving age (B) and it reinforced my feelings about why this would be dangerous to people around us. First of all, essay B points out that with the more number of cars on the road from the teenagers, the air'll become more polluted and the chance of dangerous accidents would be increased. In addition, the time it would take to get to a destination would increase because of the traffic. I believe that if the driving age is lowered, it would just lead to an increased amount of pollution that harms health, accidents, and a decrease in the amount of gas we have available to us.
Even though I would love to start driving at the age of 15 (essay A), I also wouldn't want to be involved in major accidents or in traffic, so I agree with Essay B.
Plastic Bags
I agree with the opinion of Pro Plastic Bags. I always thought plastic bags were worse than paper bags because paper bags are made from trees, a renewable resource, while plastic bags are made from oil, a nonrenewable resources. But then I learned that removing trees from the environment hurts the ecosystem, while removing oil from the environment does not hurt life of any sort. Also, plastic bags use 91% less energy to recycle than paper bags; 17 British thermal units (BTUs) to 1444 BTUs. Although there is always the argument that plastic bags suffocate animals, so will paper bags. If plastic bags are safely recycled, then they will be infinitely cheaper than paper bags and will be safe.
PLASTIC BAGS
I think that plastic bags are a better choice than paper bags. After reading the pro plastic bag essay, I have learned many things that are good about plastic bags. For one, they are reusable and can be used for many different purposes. It can be used as trashcan,carrying things, etc. Since they are made from oil, it is also very easily made, as oil is a renewable resource. Paper is made from cutting down trees, which can harm the environment even more. Also, i have learned that it takes much more energy to recycle a paper bag than it takes to recycle a plastic bag.
Person A argued that there should be a lower drinking age whilem Person B argued that alcohol should be banned completely.I agreed with person B because I agree that drunk driving kills a lot of people every year, it os dangerous for the youth, and also causes many life threteaning diseases. I really think that it should be banned becuase it is very dangerous for the youth and other people. It will also make safer roads and will cause less deaths every year.
I read about the pros and cons of plastic bags. Prior to reading these, I had agreed with Writer B that we should ban plastic bags, for the sole reason that they are harming animals everywhere. Writer A changed my opinion on this subject. After reading the counterargument, I discovered that paper bags actually do more harm to the environment. To make paper bags, tons of trees are cut down. It also takes more energy to recycle paper than it does plastic.
Reading both of the essays about Animal testing are interesting. I thought that Animal testing is bad and they should ban it, but reading Essay A, animal testing changes my mind a little. I know why we have animal testing and I respect having animal testing. I thought that before, they had animal testing to see how they can make cures for animals, but reading essay A, tells that it not only helps the animals, but it helps us from getting rabies from animals. I am against animal testing in a way because I like animals, and I wouldn't really want animals to die because of animal testing. Sometimes the testing goes wrong and the animals just happen to die, but think of it if that happened to us. We would't like it. So I would like animal testing for several reasons, and I would go against animal testing for other reasons too.
I read the essays on baning alcohol and lowering the age, I feel very convinced that essay "B" was a better choice. Seeing how driking really effects our lives as a whole, such as drunk drivers. Alcohol should be banned, however when we tried last time to ban it, it just caused problems no one wanted to deal with.
I read the persuasive essay about abortion. None of the essays struck any chord with me. Not even the pro-choice essay, which I agree with. For the B essay, the pro-life essay, I could have come up with rebuttals for B essay's rebuttals. There was nothing I felt significant that was being said in either of those essays. It was just the same arguments being tossed back and forth. There was nothing new to add to my pro-choice arguement.
I read the pair about plastic bags-they were really interesting. I agree with person B, or the con plastic bags. Many marine animals lose their lives to these plastic killers. Of course, person A mentioned that it takes less energy to recycle paper bags, but many people don't bother recycling, and what happens to those bags thrown on the ground? Paper can decompose but plastic would just choke innocent little animals.
I still agree w/ person B.
I read the essays on the plastic bags. I agree person B that using plastic bags are better than using paper bags, as plastic bags can be reused many times while paper bags use up finite resources. Person A changed my mind on my view of plastic bags and paper bags.
I read the pair of persuasive essays on whether or not to lower the driving age. After reading both essays I strongly agree with essay (B).I agree that lowering the age limit would only cause harm and would greatly increase accidents. Essay (B) also mentions that lowering the driving age would increase pollution, traffic, and life threatening diseases.
Before reading essay (B) I would probably agree with essay (A) because I would rather have the opportunity to drive earlier rather than wait. Now I realize that lowering the age limit would have some benefits, but with that would also come danger and consequences. In my opinion it would be a lot smarter to not lower the driving age.
Person A made me think again about animal testing. He/she said that some things that people say about animal testing isnt true, or that it isnt the standard treatment for lab animals. He/she also changed my mind because he/she said that animal testing does benefit us greatly, and that currently scientists are trying to reduce pain.
I read the persuasive essays on plastic bags, and I felt that I agreed more with person B then person A. Person B said that plastic bags will forever exist on Earth and that they kill a LOT of animals annually by choking them with the holes in the plastic. I think that Person A's arguments didn't convince me enough to change my mind...
I read the pair of essays about the pro's and cons of euthanization. I was strongly against it, but after I read person A talking about the benefits of it, it really made me think more. Euthanization is done humanely and gives room for animals who actually have a chance to get adopted.
I read a pair of persuasive essays about achohol. A. was arguing to lower the drinking age and B. was arguing to ban achohol. I agree with B because achohol is harmful for the human body and causes unwanted accidents.
Person B from against school uniforms reinforced me on how I already felt. As said in the essay you would have to spend more money on clothing. Clothes for school only, and clothes for outside of school such as going out with friends or eating out with your family. Also uniforms do not let you express yourself freely because everyone at school will look the same clothing wise.
I read the essays about alchohol and I agree with person B because alchohol is the cause of drunk drivers and a lot of people die every year. When people get drunk they do crazy things. There's nothing really good about drinking alchohol and I don't see why people our age need to drink it.
I read the essays about lowering the driving age. I agree with person B. Person B points out that lowering the driving age would cause more accidents. It also points out that more pollution would be caused. Before reading the essays, I would have agreed with person A, but person B's essay changed my mind about lowering the driving age.
I read the pair of essays on plastic bags, and even though person A(for plastic) said that it takes more energy to recycle paper than it does plastic, I was wondering what happens to the plastic after its recycled? I mean, don't paper bags at least decompose into the ground so they can be used again? What about the plastic? Does it just keep sitting there for a couple centuries until some poor animal burrows through it and suffocates? Then what? Do we just sit back and grieve for the animal when its too late? What a weird idea. Why not do something helpful for the animal BEFORE it dies?
Therefore, I agree with banning plastic bags, because even though it costs less money and uses less energy to recycle plastic, the plastic doesn't really do anything but take up space in the ground. So although paper does take up more money and energy, I think that it is just money and energy well spent.
I read the pair of essays about school uniforms. Person A changed my mind about school uniforms because he/she provided many facts and reasonable arguments. For example, he/she said that wearing uniforms will prevent school cliques, which in turn would prevent in-school hierarchy and racism.
I totally agree with B for animal testing. It is wrong and cruel. There are other ways of finding cures for human diseases that we havent discovered yet, and testing it on animals for our own needs is very selfish. It isn't fair to the animals to purposely get a deadly disease. It's not natural. As person A says, the scientists are trying to reduce the pain, but that doesnt make any difference. The animals were never supposed to be there in the first place.
I read the essays about the pros and cons to lowering the driving age. I agreed with person A, the person who supported the lowering of the driving age. Person B changed how I felt about the situation. If the driving age is lowered, the amount of car accidents would increase. The more cars there are, the worse traffic will get. The air will also be more polluted. Even though it would be pretty cool to drive sooner, I think's it's safer if the driving age isn't lowered.
I chose to read the essays on school uniforms. I think that school uniforms are a good thing, and agree with person A. At first I thought that uniforms were a bad thing, because it's like telling someone that they can't express themselves. In a way it is, but there are so many other ways to express yourself that clothes shouldn't matter.
Uniforms are only for school, and school is for learning. Having a preset outfit, that won't make you think twice about what others are going to say, is more of a relief than a rule. Person A really got me to realize that maybe uniforms aren't such a bad idea.
I read about if we should use plastic bags or paper bags. I agreed with person A, who was for plastic bags. I thought it would be better to use paper bags because it seemed to take a shorter time to recycle paper bags. But person A proved with evidence that plastic bags take almost as twice as less energy to recycle plastic than paper. This totally changed my mind about which grocery bag to use.
I read the essays debating on whether cloning should be allowed or not. I agree with person B, who is against cloning. They made a good point about how many lives were wasted before Dolly, the first cloned animal ever. I also think that the clones themselves will lead very unhappy lives; their only purpose would be to "relive" someone else's life. What if they don't want to be another Mozart or somebody else? That is why I am against cloning.
i choose the school uniform! i dont agree with this because, everybody expresses themself with cloths, and if we were all suppose to wear the same thing, then school would be very weird, it wouldnt be as much colorful. it didnt really change my mind, because in fourth grade, my school eisenhower was about to make school uniforms, and i really didnt like it, but then i moved! in essay, most part i believe, except for the you have to spend more money. i dont really believe, that because its just a few more money. however, everything else i believe, and how it might be a distracting, and you have to wear it everyday!
Post a Comment