I read an article reporting on the new glow in the dark fish that have been engineered and are for sale. They did a good job explaining what type of fish it was and other information such as health risks. Except at one point in the article they start giving some background on a man who defends any allegations that the new fish pose health risks. This is the paragraph:
Mr. Blake, 26, started Yorktown with a partner about two and a half years ago. Before that he started an Internet business that failed.
The paragraph leads you to believe that his background will have relevance to a certain point, but then the article jumps into a paragraph about a different gene altered fish being sold in Taiwan. I think I would have just cut the whole paragraph out and put in a paragraph saying something like this.
While the issues are just starting to appear for the glo-fish here in the United States, other parts of the world have current issues with gene altered fish only adding to the question of environmental risks.
I also read an article about the importance of military intelligence and how it has changed. They started talking about current terrorism efforts against Al Qaeda and how hard they are to track down. Then they jump into how intelligence officers need to be poets because most can't ask for a cup of coffee. I feel that the paragaph needed more information of how this relates to how hard they are to track down. It's obvious they are talking about the language, but I want to know specific examples to set up the reasons for the failing intelligence. Just how exactly isn't the intelligence working. something that leads you up to the conclusion of failed intelligence.
Transitions are important because they help to connect separate arguments. Transitions help to make points feel justified as well by following up statements with reason.Posted by gran0399 at September 24, 2004 11:46 AM