The mentor text is an article based on the argument that people and particularly students are overly dependent on technology and computers. The article lays out it's argument in the body paragraphs and explains what the argument is about in the introduction. It then goes on to address counter arguments and how they affect the argument. The article lays out their argument on a silver platter and explains why they support that argument with factual and relevant information. I personally enjoy how the article lays out the argument thoughtfully through facts and logical means. Within the text the author uses an assortment of stategies and concepts to further give credibility. The paper concludes with a conclusion that wraps up the article and expalins why it is an important topic and how the people involved can get help.The button above is a link to that article.
0 Comments
Technological Enhancments to the Human Body1-Darpa Brain Implants - Implants would be used to aid people with mental disabilities and eventually aid in military operations. The implants have claimed to not have the intent to be weaponized but DARPA is defense oriented. These brain implants have started to begin testing in patients/volunteers who are already undergoing a neural operation.
2-Hopkins Limbs - Linmbs controlled by the mind without any invasive operations. The patient in the article had his arms removed when he was a teenager due to an electrical accident and he is directly working with the researchers to work on these limbs. Although not yet commercially viable, they plan to work on them in the future. 3-Neural Implants-Pros and Cons as well as general information about neural implants and the ethical issues as well as scientific advancements that could come ot of them. 4-Issues- Lays out the legal issues and problems with the implication of a neural implant. The article explains and lays out the argument from the point of view of the legal system and the work around that an implant could have. Both articles attack the subject at a completely factual direction and adds elements from science, ethics and lawmaking. From the Pro article, "Scientists are driven by the desire to succeed as fervently as our most success-driven businessmen, entrepreneurs, or lawyers." It also goes on to claim that the research being done on and by these stem cell researchers are going to help and cure diseases and conditions that could not be treated buy previous conventional means. The pro article goes on and explains the amount of embryos and how they can be used to make a good thing out of a bad situation. The article argues that scientists can use these unwanted embryos to make scientific gains.
The anti stem cell article attacks the argument from a more ethical and moral point of view. It claims that it is a waste of money and that the people doing the research are misinforming the ones supporting them in order to get support. They also create ties between Embryo Stem Cell Research and human cloning. These arguments are full factual information and some citations in order to gain credibility. An argumentative essay should have several parts. Each split into sub categories. These parts include but are not limited to an introduction, support, defending against a counter-argument, and finally a conclusion. The introduction should be split into several pieces, the hook, the background and the thesis. The hook grabs the reader's attention and gets them interested in the essay. The background describes why and where the argument comes from. Within this section several questions should be answered; what?,who cares?, and why does it matter?. The background should then lead into the thesis. This is where you take a stance on the issue or topic at hand. Your argument is based off of what you say in the thesis.After the introduction there is the support and evidence for the stance that you chose within your thesis. The support consists of central claims supporting your argument as well as concrete factual evidence to support that claim. Following the area where you lay out the argument on a silver platter, you address potential counters to the argument that others could bring up. This includes laying out, in complete fact, an argument and a rebut to that argument as well as defending your own. The conclusion wraps up the essay and restates why it is important as well as what would change with the appropriate changes. An argumentative essay should be derived from solid fact and not your opinion. When the essay is presented out on these basis and is backed by factual statements that have truth and accountability within the paper, it should work out quite well. Within the sample essay the author addresses and lays out the facts to support his argument. He then counters an argument against his own argument and then summarizes why it matters and how it effects us as a country. For example, Mike addresses school of choice within the United States of America. He explains his case. After his explanation he supports all pieces with evidence and credible facts. These facts transition to an apposing view by the N.E.A. He addresses this argument and further explains the point of his. Then finishes with the conclusion. The link to the example argumentative essay is provided below as well as an informational website for creating an argumentative essay.
https://www.mesacc.edu/~paoih30491/ArgumentEssay7.pdf https://www.kibin.com/essay-writing-blog/argumentative-essay-outline/ Recent developments have made it so that cloning of organs and some organisms are a viable medical and medicinal route to take in a person's recovery. The thing is, it can be too much and go too far. The line, one that should never be crossed, is where you are cloning appendages. If someone clones an arm, leg, finger, or some other body part, they are taking an experience away and pampering to unnecessary needs. In the end the cloning of body parts will escalate into entire people and that is just not needed. We already have a hard time feeding all of the unique people on this planet, we don't need to feed your clone too. On the other side of that line in the sand, organ replication, if in a needed circumstance, is a correct path. I someone needs an organ vital to their survival then, if it is available, they should have the treatment so they are able to live. There is another line that can not be crossed there too. If someone need a brain they are not getting it. Every brain is unique and has it's own facets, but if you give someone a new brain it is changing who and what they are. Anything less than a brain, like a heart, lungs, and other organs, is acceptable as long as it can be done humanely and with as little pain to the patient as possible.
|
Alex FujaPart time nerd, Full time geek. Archives
June 2016
Categories |