Response to JiaYue's peer review ( by Zhao Hong)

As mentioned by JiaYue in her peer review, I have also realized that my first draft seems to be out of point and does not look like an argumentative essay. It is more like a summary of the 3rd essay given to us. Thus I have decided to rewrite my draft to rectify the mistake. In my new draft, I have added in my arguments and counterarguments with rebuttals. Furthermore, I have also expressed my stand on the issue clearly similar to that of an argumentative essay.

Next, I have also added quite a number of citations and quotations from different references into my draft to make it more sounding and interesting.

Last but not least, I have also rewritten my thesis statement and my main points for the essay, and edited my conclusion, as suggested by JiaYue.

Peer Review for Yuheng (Done by Zhao Hong)

Yuheng did a good job in writing his first draft of WA2. His essay is well-organized, accompanied with clearly elaborated arguments and counterarguments. His thesis statement “… although some people oppose such a method, there is some evidence which indicates that this is not a good way to combat global warming…” clearly expressed his view on the injection of sulfur particles to cool the planet.

In addition, his introduction paragraph gives a brief yet detailed background of the issue to be discussed, with a question as food for thought. Usage of transition words further enables the paragraphs to be linked smoothly to one another and prevent “breakage” between paragraphs.

On the other hand, Yuheng can probably improve on his paragraphing to improve the presentation of his essay. Some paragraphs are slightly too lengthy which may cause readers to lose their interest while reading halfway.

Moreover, some of his rebuttals can be further elaborated if not most of the content will seem to be focused only on research of SRM. I would advice Yuheng to provide more supporting facts to make his essay more interesting and sounding. I would also like to advice him to edit the part regarding the cost of SRM as he did not give a clear stand on whether SRM is deemed cheap or not.

In a nutshell, this is a good draft with some minor editing to be taken care of.

Peer review (Post by Song Yuheng)

After reading JiaYue’s essay, I think it is a good essay. In the introduction part, she used some examples to show how serious the global warming is. This draws readers’ attention. Then she raised two opposite opinions and rebutted them. Eventually she summed up the reasons why SRM should be implemented. The structure of the essay is very clear. In addition, there are a lot of reference to be used which makes her argument more convincible.
However, there are some defects as well. One thing is that the introduction part seems to be too long. It is almost as long as the body part. I think she can sum up the examples a little bit to make it shorter. The other thing is that the thesis statement is not very clear. I think she can make it clearer by putting her stand at the beginning of the body part.
Generally speaking, it is a good essay.

Peer review on lim zhao hong’s WA2

Very clear and good expansion and introduction about geoengineering and SRM , gives the audience good review of the definition of SRM AND GEOENGINEERING.
Very clear and obvious thesis statement at the end of the first paragraph--- the introduction paragraph.
Clear outline. Know well what you want to say.
However, I don’t think this is a agrumentive essay, as you have no opponent and proponent and rebuttal as well as the stands and thesis statement for both sides.
You have only introduced the advantages and defects of SRM, without showing your own stand and the arguments seem not powerful enough.
Still the points in this essay seems not vey collective and lack of some coherence.
In addition, some references should be added in your draft.
For the conclusion part, not review your thesis statement and main points in your final conclusion. Better mention again in the conclusion

By liang jiayue.

comment on JiaYue's blog(post by yuheng)

This is a good summary. The structure is clear by using transition words “firstly”, ”secondly”, ”thirdly”, ”in addition”. The content is clear as well. It displays the main points in the article one by one. At the end of the summary, it shows the author’s opinion.
However, I think in terms of the problems of SRM some of the author’s opinions is missed in the summary. For example the author also said, SRM might lead to the ignorance of coming out new policy on global warming. In addition, the author also mentioned about the uncertainty.
Anyway generally speaking it is a good summary.

Liang Jiayue :SUMMERY OF THE ARTICLE:REASERACH ON GLOBLE SUN BLOCK NEEDED NOW

SRM is a proposed form of geoengineering, aims to reduce the earth's absorbtion of solar energy to reduce the effects of globle warming.
SRM is cheap and fast, but imperfect. the problems that reasearchers have encountered studying SRM make it a more serious problem to put SRM in use.
firstly, besides the argrument about whether SRM could effectively improve the climate situation, the side effects SRM caused can be very serious and uncertain. the earth may have less precipation and less evaporation. moreover,other introduced environmental risks like ozone holes wil eventually pose riskes as arge as those from the uncontrolled emmission. dealing with such case, we must develop the capability to do SRM in a manner that completments such cuts, while managing the associated environmental and political risks.
secondly, the size and amount of ditribution of aerosols need further testing and may cost millions of dollars.
thirdly, the crucial points of the globle governance of SRM is establishing legitimate collective control over an activety that some might to seek to do unilaterally.a nation might grow frustrated at the pace of international coorpration and establishin a national programme of gradually expanding reserach and field tests. in additon, no existing treaty or institution is well suited to SRM governance. from the author's point of view, a better approach would be to build international cooperation and norms from the bottom up, as knowledge and experience develop.

Response to Jia yue’s Peer Review(Post by Song Yuheng)

Thank for Jia yue’s advices. I have taken some of her advices.
First of all, I added some punctuation after the transition words. Then I used the APA to quote some of the information which I get from some materials.
However, I did not agree with her that I should add some deeper arguments in the last paragraph. Because all the arguments need some facts to prove that it is true. Since it is the last paragraph there should be no examples. Therefore I do not think some deeper arguments should be added to the last paragraph.
In addition when I was editing my 1st draft I also found that my vocabulary was poor. Thus maybe I should do something to enlarge my vocabulary.
Again thanks for Jia yue’s comments on my first draft.

Comment on Zhuo Ming's Summary (by Zhao Hong)

Firstly, Zhuo Ming’s did not clearly indicate which article he is summarizing on. So I am going to assume that he is using Article 3: Copenhagen needs a strong lead negotiator as his reference. Zhuo Ming did a bad job in summarizing as he did not include the important details which a summary should have. In this article, the main points should be the actions and experiences faced by Kyoto chair Raul Estrada-Oyuela.

Next, the summary contains a number of spelling and grammatical errors. Zhuo Ming should spend more time on the usage of certain words, such as “explodes” in paragraph 2. It can be observed clearly that some of the words are not used appropriately in his summary. In addition, Zhuo Ming should use more connective words and expressions to link his summary to make the sentences relate to one another smoothly.

In conclusion, I would like to advise Zhuo Ming to read the article a few times, get an idea on what the article is about and list out the main points before attempting to summarize it.

4th post--summary of COPENHAGEN NEEDS A STRONG LEADER NOGETIATOR (ZhuoMing)

A strong leader negotiator is needed as stated by the author is the main point of the passage. The characters a strong leader has are exceptional skill, knowledge and diplomacy as what a respectable professional diplomat said.
Firstly, after the quotation, the writer introduced some facts on Climate Change to give a background and let readers know what situation we are in now.Then he gives his main point that the main reason that caused these problem is the lack of a strong leader and the best way to solve this problem is to find a strong leader, because the failure of the conference is largely caused by a lack of a strong leader(the leader was changed again and again, finally, it was a leader who was considered to be without necessary experiences that presided over the talks.)
Later in the passage, the author gives a solution that we a committee that combines UNFCCCIf and the Kyoto Protocol can be formed. If such a committee is formed, its elected chair would naturally lead the negotiations at the Copenhagen summit. And there is a good chance that this strong international leader will make a difference. After this, the leader holds himself as an example and then mentions Jean-Maurice Ripert and Tommy Koh and the excellent work they had done to illustrate how important it is to have a strong leader in charge. The auther did not only talk about some leaders we already know but also introduced some leaders he had been working with, which shows that he was also a leader in this field and made his statements more believable.
In the conclusion, with reference to the conference in Copenhagen, he said a good leader is so important that without one, no conclusion will be made and we could do nothing but postpone the discussion. By arguing his statement from another perspective, he lets his readers understand his point better.

response to the peer review of ZhaoHong (by zhuoming)

In the peer review, the most right thing zhaohong has mentioned is that I am off topic as I had not read the three topics carefully. So I have done a great editing again in the second draft. And as ZhaoHong said, the beginning is a funnel introduction, however, I found the funnnel introduction is a little bit long and I should have focued on the discussion of the subtopic, so I just cut some down.
Another thing I have added is the expression usage and I found the structure of the passage becomes more clear after this and I will pay attention to this when I am writing a passage in the future. Even though there is unity in paragraghs, I still think some discussions are too detailed, which makes some paragraphs too long than them should be, so I just cut off the unnecessary setences.
Finally, thank ZhaoHong for his review, he had found a lot of disadvantages that I can not find myself.I will take care of these later I write other passage.