For Saturday’s contribution, please respond to one of your classmate’s post. You might answer any of the following questions:
What good points do they bring up that you hadn’t thought of?
Do you agree with any of their particular assessments? Why? (Remember, in our discussion boards as well as in academic writing, it is not really enough to just “agree”. We need to “agree with a difference” or agree and give our own insight for it to be productive!)
Do you disagree with any of their particular assessments? Why? (Remember, it is not enough to just disagree. Of course we need to disagree, and give reasons why!)
As always, be sure to include specific textual examples in your contributions. (“On page 4, the author writes…”)
“She compares the definition of art with the form of graffiti, indicating that there are many similarities between graffiti and art, and the larger reason is the different creation places in the art of graffiti. And some so-called works of art are for money, not passion. Instead, it has lost the art of graffiti. So graffiti is largely accepted by the public. In the final Informed Rhetorical Argument, the author adds more material analysis and cites more definitions of art and graffiti. We can see that the author combines her thesis with antithesis, showing more specific and convincing. She gave up the long outline of graffiti but expressed it in short and powerful language. She uses a number of examples from an official website or from her personal experience to attract readers’ attention and to convince readers that graffiti can also be called art with short and powerful words, and it is no worse than the art of definition.
The author affirms the theory that we should transform genetically modified mosquitoes with the example of mosquito’s harm to human beings. Eliminating all mosquitoes is not feasible because it is an important part of the environment. The author also used data to illustrate that one laboratory in Brazil produced two million improved mosquitoes a week. In fact, the real purpose of the author is to make life better and get rid of terrible diseases.
I think this article conforms to this standard that the argument’s credibility is enhanced by careful, fair and sincere consideration of alternate viewpoints. In this article said: “According to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, “Insufficient sleep is associated with obesity, yet little is known about how repeated nights of insufficient sleep influence energy expenditure and balance” The author used official cases to prove the cause of human obesity and increased credibility. I think this article standard that does not conform to stakes because in this article the author is talking about the disadvantage of obesity. In the article said:”Being obese can cause many other health problems such as: cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, breathing problems and many others.” At last, I’ll score 267 points for this article. ”
The quoted part is what you need to respond to. 300 WORDS ONLY.