So it is coming down to crunch time and i'm feeling very stressed. I was wondering if others felt the same. I really glad we don't have a final in this class. The paper should be that hard to finish and once it is done all we have to do is study for all of our other classes. I'm super excited (that was sarcastic). Anyways have a good night everyone and good luck studing.
Hey! I'm stuck in NJ Monday so could someone let me know what we do in class? And all my email is gone... did this happen to anyone else? My email folder is absolutely empty. Did anyone get their paper back from the writing center?
I sent my paper into the writing center and I haven't got it back. Are we suppose to go to their website and get it with our number that we got after we submitted it?
Well...I just submitted my paper not too long ago..it was definitely a lot harder to argue the other side when the side you argued before has better facts to back up your arguments! Did anyone else find that was true for them too? Hope everyone has an amazing thanksgiving break, much needed!
I wasn't able to make it to class on Monday, I was just wondering if anyone could fill me in on what we did. Thanks
Has anybody submitted their paper to the writing center yet? How long do they have the paper for? Do you guys know when we turn in their proofing?
I think giving a speech on my paper will be easier than I originally thought. I've been so immersed in my topic for so long!
I think my verbs of to be are getting a little better, but I am still having quite a bit of the verb forms in my paper. Does anyone else have that problem? Is everyone's paper coming smoothly?
Hey guys hope everyone has a great weekend, also kind of worried about how much ive been blogging just wondering on average how many times people blog a week:) THE RAIN IS GREAT!
The hardest arguments to refute from the opponents side would be the whole issue of religion being against same-sex marriages. Gods ideal marriage is between one women and one man in the purpose of creating children. Many people in the United States are religious and may oppose the marriages of same-sex marriages. This leads to people not supporting same-sex marriages.
Yes religion is very important, but not everyone is religious. Everyone should be given the same amount of treatment through religion and the law. Since men and women are only suppose the be brought together, what happens when a couple are physically not able to produce children? Are they also not suppose to marry? They are allowed to marry so what not allow people of the same sex marry. Another issue is that very religious people are still getting divorce. Many people are not keeping marriage true and committed. Another issue is the law. The government is said to keep church and state separate, so why does it keep coming up from political leaders that, God intended marriage to be between and man and a woman.
Many people get married not only for the purpose of religion. Many people of different religions unite in marriage. Both the male and female may not even be religious, marriage doesn’t always mean that it has to be religious. What is the point of getting married at a church if the couple doesn’t even go to the church. Several couples show up a couple times out of the year, just so they can be members at the church. Marriage is shown as it is out of love not just religion and marriage is different for everyone.
There are a couple arguments from the opposing side of the controversy of therapeutic cloning that are hard to refute. These include the idea of destroying an embryo as immoral, there is no clear line between reproductive and therapeutic cloning, and there are better alternatives to use.
I will refute the argument of destroying an embryo is immoral by offering an opposite argument. The embryo is not allowed to live past the fourteen day stage, women with pro-choice can freely have an abortion after that point (liberty), and embryos are taken from in-vitro fertilization clinics where they would have been thrown in the trash can otherwise. I will use the value of liberty while adding in opposite arguments as to why destroying the embryo should not be considered destruction in the first place.
The second argument is harder to refute. Seperating reproductive and therapeutic cloning is hard for anyone to do. They are two completely different processes yet if you add just one step to therapeutic cloning it becomes reproductive cloning. I will refute by offering an opposite argument to the premise saying there are laws against reproductive cloning now just how there will always be and if scientists really would like to participate in reproductive cloning and laws wont stop them, nothing will stop them now or ever. I will also bring up the fact that therapeutic cloning research is legal in some other countries so if scientists once again wanted to practice reproductive cloning along with therapeutic at this point and time they could just go to another country. The problem I run into is refuting the fact that many scientists are wishy washy on this issue. Some scientists who support therapeutic cloning and support the ban on reproductive cloning still believe there could be benefits to reproductive cloning. Some scientists get my side into trouble by supporting the right idea while voicing ideas of hope on the part of reproductive cloning, the most controversial area of cloning.
I agree with the argument made that there are better alternatives to embryonic stem cell research. I will support both sides of my contreversy by saying adult stem cell research could have the same benefits as embryonic stem cell research and could someday eliminate the controversy of using embryos for research. The deal is, to use alternatives to embryonic stem cells scientists need to know exactly how embryonic cells work to be able to program the adult cells and make them adopt the positive qualities of the embryonic cells. Whether you support adult stem cell research or embryonic, the embryonic research needs to happen before scientific work goes further on adult stem cell research.
Arguments Hardest to Refute
The arguments of my opponents’ that will be hardest to refute would be when they argue that downloading files is illegal, how much money record companies are losing, and how individuals who download are slowly ruining the music for the future. These arguments are the hardest to convince because you have to convince people that although it is breaking the law it is for a better cause. Then the opposition has all of the self-pity stories of how workers have been fired because of individuals who download files illegally. Once again the stories are true, but you have to argue that it was only a matter of time before something like this happened, and in all reality their can be a positive even for the workers who got fired.
When the opposition argues that downloading files is illegal they are speaking the truth. To counter the opposition’s argument I will argue an opposite argument as to why although downloading files is illegal it had to happen. The main argument I will produce is that the music industry as a whole is changing to the faster and larger digital world. And also the digital world comes in forms that are extremely cheaper, or in the illegal sense at no cost. I know people won’t be able to always download for free and I won’t be a supporter for keeping the downloads free. What I want people to see is that this process that the music industry is going through is for a better reason. That there is a change going on from hardware materials used for music to software materials. It is similar to the process of cassette tapes to cds, but far more changing in its effects.
In all reality, the change of music going digital is all for the better, and that is what I have to argue against the opposition. I have no doubt in my mind that this change will be positive and that determination will help me refute the opponent’s hardest arguments.
My paper is about the censorship of modern art. I support not censoring art. The argument of my opponents that is the hardest to refute is that bad art should be censored. It is tough because no one wants to look at bad art but the other problem is that bad art is a matter of opinion. Everyone has a different idea of what art is bad. I have one source that argues for censoring art very well. I will use multiple ways of discrediting this argument. For one of the arguments I will use value questioning to discredit this argument. One does not have the right to judge what is good or bad for someone else. And we have the first amendment to protect us. I will also discredit the argument by disproving the premises. What is bad art does not hold true in all cases.
The other argument for censorship of art is not all art is appropriate for all viewers. This one is hard to refute because not all is appropriate for everyone. I will refute this by asking who defines what is appropriate? That would be a moral issue. I could also disapprove premises because it doesn’t stand in all circumstances. The only thing an organization can do it state that the art may not be appropriate for all ages.
Fat tax arguments: hard to refute
The hardest arguments that are to refute, is the argument that soda, candy and junk food are unhealthy, and over consumed. If the government stepped in and taxed these foods, they would be consumed less. The taxes on these foods would be used for good, or so the government claims. I will refute the arguments by saying that it is the citizen’s choice not the government’s choice to tax the foods that we choose to eat. The concept of fat tax in reality is a statement of our freedom. I plan to make proposals for the opponent. One proposal is the idea that say there is a small tax, it be on soda alone, and that the tax dollars are guaranteed to go to the health departments. Then, maybe fat tax would be a good idea, but for now it is a moral situation. Morally, as citizens of the United States, we have the choice to choose to consume junk food or not to.
The other argument is the fact that American citizens are unhealthy due to the fact that the food that they consume the food that they can afford. Unhealthy foods are less more affordable. Thus, unhealthy foods are consumed more. The proposal or refute that I plan to make for this situation, is that the companies that produce junk foods, be given a tax break for packaging and selling more “healthy” foods.
The big refute that I feel is valid for the fat taxes, is that as citizens we do not know where the tax is going. It is our money, and we have the right to do with it what we choose.
The argument made by my opponent that is hardest to refute is the argument about how therapeutic cloning can benefit our society. Therapeutic cloning is cloning to heal people instead of to create more people. The argument says that organs could be cloned that would not be rejected by the person receiving them and there would be a much shorter waiting list, since the organs needed could be cloned. Therapeutic cloning could also cure diseases like diabetes and parkinsons disease. This argument is hard to refute because of all the benefits therapeutic cloning seems to have. It seems to be all benefits with no negative effects at all. It is the perfect way to solve many of the worlds problems. This is why it is so hard to refute, because it is perfect. Or is it? The world may never know. But, if you think about the argument more you can start seeing it is not perfect but in fact flawed in many ways, and can be refuted.
First I plan to refute the argument through questioning values. Therapeutic cloning involves the killing of fertilized human embryos, and that is wrong. I will also challenge the premise of therapeutic cloning being able to cure diseases. Recently, scientists have reported that parkinsons disease can probably not be cured through therapeutic cloning. Since therapeutic cloning cannot cure the diseases it promised to cure, it should be banished from the land. And also we don’t have the technology to use therapeutic cloning, so it would involve time and money to research this, and anything you have to do extensive research on isn’t worth researching at all.
I am having a hard time refuting the argument that states vaccinations not needed in the twenty first century. Numerous facts and data demonstrate the adverse health effects of vaccines. Vaccines are historically proven effective, yet in recent decades more controversial arguments have aroused. The elimination of some diseases supports the use of vaccines yet. I am having a hard time finding recent data that includes vaccines being a mandatory procedure. A lot of the information supporting the use of mandatory vaccinations may be said to be “outdated.” I accept the fact that a lot of the supporting evidence records from past decades yet; the past provides proven supporting information. I plan on acknowledging the adverse health effects that may result from the use of vaccines. I also plan to compare the chance of adverse health effects versus becoming infected with a deadly disease. My strongest arguments will rely on statistical data, stating the low probability of adverse health effects. I will state the safety benefits and reinforce the popular practice of immunizations. I will make a point to state that it is not rational to compare the low statistical data of reported adverse health effects versus the benefits of immunizations. Hopefully, I will be able to explain some type of reasoning why certain individuals react negatively to vaccines. Being aware of allergic reactions or other health conditions may help prevent adverse health effects. I also will provide information supporting certain individuals that are at high risk or adverse health effects to refrain from using certain vaccines. Much statistical data contains information stating many vaccines are totally unnecessary.
The hardest argument to refute that my opponents make, is that the operation is beneficial to single animals that are always indoors, as well as pets that are allowed to roam freely. Many of them are unaware of the medical benefits that result from having their pet spayed or neutered, so you have to inform them of the risks, and then make them realize that their pets life could be lengthened and improved from having the operation.
Another argument made by opponents that is somewhat difficult to refute is that the operation is ‘too expensive’. This is hard to argue against because every individual has a different income and thus different idea of what ‘expensive’ denotes. The best way I have come up with to argue that the operation will still be beneficial despite its cost, is that no matter how much money you make, the cost of a spay or neuter operation will still be less than the treatment of ailments eliminated by the operation will cost. From that one may conclude that in the long run, he or she will be saving money.
One more argument my opponents like to make is one based on luxury. Many owners feel that it is a waste to spay or neuter their ‘pure-bread’ cat or dog. They think that they may even be able to make money off their pet’s offspring. Data shows that this is an assumption that should be looked at differently. Nearly half of animals euthenized in animal shelters are indeed pure-bread. Therefore pure-bread animals are just as major part of the problem of overpopulation as mixed breed animals are. Other statistics show that people often do not make much money off their pure-bread pups or kittens. Usually only breeders that already have a reputation and business set up benefit from selling pups and kittens.
I find that there are not many arguments that are hard to refute. Most arguments consist of using animals for safety of substances that have already been proven. There is no need to continue testing cosmetics on animals because most cosmetic products are already in use and haven’t done any harm. I plan to refute this argument by stating that animal testing in no longer needed for cosmetics in today’s times. I can prove this by stating if cosmetics were dangerous, why would so many people use them. I can disprove or find a fault in their logic because they have no reason for testing to continue to exist.
Another argument would be that animal testing is not needed in the medical world. Testing is needed for medicine to further today’s research and discover cures to new diseases. Although, as the world advances, we probably won’t need animal testing anymore, the rate at which we are at now, we definitely need it. One can refute this argument by showing all of the benefits that animal testing has provided for the medicinal world. One can state all of the previous inventions due to animal research and find how beneficial it proves to be. By knowing this, I can equally refute the statements given by people who don’t support animal research for medicine.
- The hardest argument that I have trying to refute is mainly ethical concerns when talking about same-sex marriage. I believe it should be legal for homosexual couples to marry and the opponents of my opinion say that it is unethical and they are trying to protect the sanctity of marriage.
- The reason I'm having trouble with this topic is mainly due to the fact that I need to somehow convince the audience that marriage today has lost much of its values and ethics already. By doing this, I can explain how allowing same-sex marriages would not change society ethically. The sanctity of marriage would still exist. Many male/female couples don't follow the values and ethics of marriage anyway. I don't have a lot of trouble arguing against "the sanctity of marriage" argument but it is the most common argument against same-sex marriage.
- What I want to do to refute their argument is to focus on marriage as a whole in the current generation. By showing how the sanctity of marriage is gone already in most cases, it will show that homosexual couples would do nothing to hurt marriage in this country. I will use examples such as dating reality television shows, high divorce rate, married couples that are not religious, and the high rate of infedelity among couples. One argument I may pose would be to talk about how a climbing divorce rate only shows how the sanctity of marriage is losing its value already. Marriage is supposed to be a life-long commitment to each other but society as a whole has a hard time following that religious rule. Even highly religious couples get divorced. My grandparents are a perfect example of a highly religious couple that got divorced. Both of them are highly into their faith but their marriage was not worth sticking it out until the day they die.
For my paper I argue for genetic engineering. It is hard to argue against GMOs when it comes to labeling and effecting surrounding organisms. When it comes to labeling I agree that a consumer has the right to know what is in the food they are purchasing and consuming, but it becomes hard when you think how someone is suppose to go about labeling GMOs. What is considered as a GMO and how is someone supposed to know the different genes within the product. It is hard to know were a peanut gene into another organism is going to act like a peanut and have an allergic reaction like one. Plus is would cost more money to package the GMOs since they have to take time and figuring what is the GMO product and whether there are allergic reactions. To discredit this argument I would use values, economy and capitalism over safety and responsibility.
Not only labeling but also surrounding organisms may be harmed by GMOs is in question. The genes of the GMO may be transferred to another organism, making that organism the GMO traits, which would not be good. Although this is a good theory there is no proof that this could happen. This one of the arguments made by the environmentalist, but it can be justified. To tire this argument down I would use credibility and not enough data.
There are many side arguments on the other side of my issue that may be hard to refute. The topic of my paper is file-sharing, and downloading music is illegal. I think that the fact that downloading music is illegal and that it violates copyrighted material will be hard to argue against. Another argument that goes along with this, is the idea that musicians work long and hard for their music and it is artistic talent that is being taken away.
It is hard to argue against the idea that downloading music wrong because a person downloads something that is copyrighted, because many people believe that if something is copyrighted, people shouldn’t be able to copyright it. Many people would think that if we allow copyrighted music to be downloaded for free, then what other copyrighted material may be next? It is also hard to argue against the idea of musicians deserving credit for their artistic work that they have put into their music. This is hard to argue against because it is a general value that people have that people should be paid for the work that they do. When people put lots of time into making an album, they should be compensated for that work, rather than have people receive all of their music for free.
I think that I plan on refuting both of these arguments in the same way. Discrediting the premises would probably be most effective. I could argue that in the music industry, almost all music is borrowed. Many songs have been re-written, multiple “different” songs contain the same beats and musical themes in the background, and musicians are always borrowing music from each other. Making this claim would discredit the premise that it would violate copyright laws, because in the music industry, is anything really truly original enough to merit a copyright if it is all borrowed from one another? This would also work with the idea that people work long and hard and deserve credit for their work, because if they are borrowing form other people, then they aren’t really working that hard.
Since beginning my paper of Chronic Wasting Disease, I have not only learned a great deal about my side of the controversy but about the other side as well. Those who believe CWD is a dangerous threat and support drastic action to curb the problem do make some points that I find hard to refute. First and foremost, CWD is a relatively new disease, which has only been in recognized in the last 30 years. As a result we do not have a great deal of evidence supporting either side. However when I try to argue that the meat from cervids in safe to consume I do not have long term scientific studies. So far CWD has not passed from animal to humans. Yet the other side can use the fact that more testing needs to be done and that we cannot assume safety standards. This argument is popular among the general public. I can argue all day that we have not had any transmission to humans, but the fact of the matter is that we do not have hard, irrefutable evidence for either side. Those on the opposing side say that it is better to be safe and wait until long term testing is completed.
It seems that the argument I have taken on is logical and would probably win support for the opposing side; I have found a way to counter this. While I may accept the fact that there is some inherent risk in consuming meat from cervids that carry CWD, I would also like to point out the risks we take every day. Each and every day thousands of people flock to grocery stores to pick up beef, pork, and chicken out of meat cases. Each time this is done the person is taking a risk. There have been hundreds of meat recalls because of contamination, and these contaminations have led to deaths. Cervids on the other hand have not killed anyone and to this day all evidence has pointed to CWD not passing to humans. In my argument I am essentially trying to bring CWD back into perspective.
My paper addresses the controversy of the smoking ban being implemented in Minneapolis and St. Paul bars and restaurants. My paper is intended to support and promote the ban further promoting a better public health. However, opposing arguments have much support around the twin cities. It is really hard to actually know if the business economy of Minneapolis a St. Paul will be effected by this new ban. Business owners around the Twin cities are preparing for a drastic decline in business and circulation. One way that I am going to attempt to refute this argument is in the hope that is all business around the cities abide by this now smoking ban, business’ alike will not suffer for all have conformed to non smoking. Another big argument that opponents arise is that smoking is a human right and the government has no right to take away a hobby of millions of Americans. This is the argument that I am the hardest for me to refute. I have found that the only way that I can refute this argument is through which values should humans have in mind. So the argument for public health should be above that of individual rights. It seems that only the individual smoker experiences the pleasure of the actual act of smoking while scientific evidence supports that both the individual as a well as those around experience the harms of this drug. So I am going to argue that the value of public health is more important than that of individual pleasure.
Arguments that are hard to refute for my topic would be the fact that animal testing has produced many favorable results. It has been done for years and has helped to develop the polio vaccine, insulin and many other diseases. It has even made make-ups and cleaners safer for human use.
Testing on animals has been around for years with good results. The scientific world still uses it today despite improved technology. It is hard to say something is bad when it has produced so many good results. How do you argue that animal testing is bad when it may have in some way saved your life or the life of someone you know. Testing has also helped to test artificial hearts lungs and bionic limbs.
Although I plan to argue that although animal testing has produced favorable results it is immoral especially since now days alternatives are available. We have plenty of alternatives that offer the same results faster and cheaper. Not to mention that they save animal lives. Also the results from these tests are more reliable and are more directly related to humans.
This is the new age. The age of technology and we should be using that instead of a life. A life is a life. Companies could expand and be more successful at what they do by embracing this new technology. They would not have to worry about all of the rules and regulations that they have to deal with when having animals as test subjects. In the end it my not take as many workers either and they might be able to save time and essentially lives with this time.
I think that my hardest argument to refute from the opposing side them saying that humans do not need to drink milk. I am trying to write that we do need to drink milk and I have all kinds of facts about the vitamins that are found in milk and what they do for you and your body. However, I am not able to find any research about what would happened if you don’t drink milk. I am not able to find a study that talked about two children one that drank milk and one that didn’t and then had the results of there health. I am also having a hard time extending the argument that you shouldn’t drink milk. It is said that humans are the only mammals to drink milk after 6 months of age but that is not very detailed.
What I plan on doing it writing about how for the past how many years most people have been drinking milk and they have been living longer and longer lives so why do we think now that there needs to be a change. I also plan on talking further about the nutrients found in milk and how they go directly into your body and help you in many different ways and there are not many foods that can do that. I will also discredit there side by saying that I could not find any research saying that you could live a healthier life if you didn’t drink milk.
I am hoping that by doing this I can get my argument across and that by the end of the paper you know more about milk and what it has to offer and why everyone should get there 3-A-Day.
The one argument that my opponents have that is the hardest to refute is the fact that not everyone involved in the circus has committed a crime or mistreated an animal. By not supporting all circuses that have animals, some people argue that we are punishing people who have done no wrong. Many people rely on the circus as their only source of income because it really is a very specialized field. By taking all animals out of the circus, people may be forced to find new jobs and a new way of life. These same people argue that there are laws to shut down specific circuses that do not treat animals well. With these laws, there is no need to make an overall law to ban all animals from the circus.
To refute this argument, I will show that these laws aimed at shutting down only specific circuses that do not comply with certain standards, do not work. They do not scan the circuses sufficiently and there is plenty of evidence that shows that many cases in big circuses are overlooked or difficult to follow up on. Big circuses also have enough money to bribe investigators to be quiet about illegal activities. Wild animals need a lot of care and they are currently not getting what they need to live a happy life. If they are forced to perform than they should also be happy. While fairness to all circuses is important, the animals should be the number one concern. If any animals at all are being abused or mistreated, than animals should be taken out of the circus until an efficient method of watching over them is created. It is critical that while animals are still being mistreated we must boycott all circuses that have animal acts in them. People in the circus may lose their job, even though they were not abusing animals, but until the circus learns how to take care of wild animals, which may be never, they should not be allowed to contain wild animals. I do not think that there is any way that huge, wild animals such as elephants and tigers can live happily in a circus. They need room to roam. This type of refuting will be an example of the value question. We must value the animals' lives more than jobs.
Most of my arguments from the other side are made concerning the legal fees and how costly regulating the pollution in our environment. They don’t really have a lot of facts of just how much money is spent because every situation is different, every state and such. They make a point that companies that are regulated cannot produce as much product and therefore are not efficient because of the standards. Regulation of pollution has an effect on the economy, which is hard to tear down.
You cannot tear down the economy and the effect on it, because there are no facts or statements saying that it doesn’t hurt the economy by the amount of money spent. How can you prove something without credible and reliable sources stating what money is spent and how?
I plan to find credible sources and lots of facts and information that tears down the other side, however, this side requires a lot more digging in depth to find such a thing. There are tons of information that states why pollution is bad for the environment and why we should regulate it but very little to what’s bad about regulating pollution. So I plan to dig deep to find information that counter acts the very established argument to why regulation of pollution is good.
I am so excited to go home for Thanksgiving. I live 5 hours away and only have been home once since school started. I am really excited about having my own room, a large bed, driving my car, and showering without flip flops. Of course i want to see my family and eat all of the good thanksgiving food. i hope everyone has a safe ride home and back and a good weekend.
Is everyone excited for thanksgiving!!!! I sure am...I am excited to see my old friends and my family. It will be nice to be home for a few days. Does anyone have any exciting plans for thanksgiving break?? I hope you all have a great weekend!
I also feel that class on Monday helped me very much. I am glad she went over those points. They all were things that I needed to fix in my paper. Also, find it hard to remember to blog. I am going to try harder to do it after class each day. Maybe that will help, we wll have to see.
hey guys! Go support Michelle at the indoor marching band concert this weekend at northrup...as you all know, she is a damn good flute player! The concert is at Saturday at 7 pm and Sunday at 3 pm... the cost is a bit steep i will warn you, but $15.50 is small amount to pay to support one of our dear classmates and it would mean the world to Michelle! Yay for the U of M!
Is anyone else really excited that this paper is almost finished. I can definatly see the end!
Today's class was nice because I always need those common research paper errors pointed out to me otherwise I just don't notice. I would've never known how to improve my thesis without today's class.
Let me know if I have this correct. So out thesis goes at the end of your introduction at the beginning of your paper. Also we state the opposing argumants then tair them down. Am I right? Please let me know if I have the right idea.
does anyone else find it hard to remember to blog often enough? I mean it don't take much time to do, its just remembering to do it that is hard. Oh well, we just need to get a good one going, so everyone participates, so it not hard to remember.
Well for what was said it sounds like I'll have to stop by the writing center for some help with my paper. Where exactly is the writing center??
I am so happy that the deadline for our paper got pushed to next Wednesday! It is such a relief for me. I have been working on tearing down the other sides arguements, but I'm not sure what way is most effective (faulty premise, challenging data, etc) It seems weird to put data in my paper and then a short time later say that the data is wrong...but maybe thats just me!
I went their and I thought they did a really nice job correcting my paper, even though I didn't have the right information in it and still had a horrible grade, but yes, I think they do a good job with correcting papers.
Hey guys, is anyone else having a really hard time refining their paper? I just feel like I've read it so many times that I'm not going to catch the mistakes. I'm thinking about taking it to the writing center. Has anyone else had luck with that?
I really really enjoy this class. I like that Ms. Tschider bases the grade on what we have been working on for the most of the class, our paper. I really like how she had every section due at different times to keep us on track. Knowing me I would start it the day before with no research done, this allows me to manage me time so much better.
Yay its friday..and its beautiful outside...ahhh! Have a great weekend!
Hey everyone. I have a question. Is the paper due on Sunday or Monday? I couldnt make it to class on Friday so I couldnt ask her there. Please let me know. Have a good weekend.
It's always super exciting to get to class and realize it's cancelled and you dont have to spend hours working on your paper over the weekend this rocks! Anyways everyone have a good weekend
Hey classmates. I thought i would do a quick blog before i started my rough draft tonight. I hope everyone is well and that your rough drafts/papers are coming along nicely. I am a bit unsure about how to go about writing the other side. Do we write a full agrument and then tear it down? or not write the full agrument at all? Not so sure, so if anyone has any ideas it would be great if you could pass them along to me. Thanks!
I hope that everyone is doing well! Just a quick question. Does anyone know what the last 2 pages are going to be about? I dont know if I will be able to find anything else to write about.
Have a good day.
im having a problem with the last quarter. im kinda doing my paper differently. my first section was about the laws of animal testing. the second was about the history of animal testing involving medicine. the third is about why it shouldn't be tested for cosmetics with moral and ethical reasons. i have no clue what to do for the fourth. im agruing against animal testing except for medicianal purposes. any ideas?
I'm happy we can finally see the end of this paper. I'm kind of excited. :-)
I'm having a hard time organizing my paper with all my different points. Any suggestions?
So we only have our other side controversy and that is going to be 3 pages right? And add 3 more scholarly source and 3 other, or was it two? Oh well, hope everyone did well on their other papers.
I'm really glad we did those sentence exercises because they're mistakes that I only recognize when I'm really looking for them. They're not neccessarily hard, but I don't usually catch them when I'm proof-reading.
hey guys hope everyone's monday is going good!! It's the start of a new cold week here. Good luck to everyone with starting convince number two!!:)
Is anyone else having a real hard time with grammer, I know I sure am.
MAN grammar is no fun! anyways i thought that midterm was cool, as long as you go to class regularly all the answers were in our notes:) yay hope everyone has a great weekend! at least minnesota was democratic thats all we can really be happy for:)
How's everybodys day going? Mine is going well..Friday seems to be going quickly so thats good, I'm excited for the weekend. What sort of fun things are you guys up to this weekend? Have an amazing weekend!
I felt like I might have repeated myself in the essay, it seemed a little hard for me. It was okay.
How does everyone feel about doing their mid-term. I hope I did ok. I'm not so sure about my essay though.
Hey guys what did you get on number.....haha just kidding. Is everyone done with their midterm? What is everyone's views on it. I thought I understood it, which kind of scares me so I think I might have done a little more but who knows.
For the essay are we supposed to take into account active voice? Or is it purely just informative?
Hey guys! Good luck with your mid-terms tonight!
I hope everyone voted today! I am watching the results right now and it is really interesting to have democracy happen!
I thought the review was good. I hope there isn't alot that we didn't review. Happy studying!