Write detailed comments which evaluate two papers according to the following que
Write detailed comments which evaluate two papers according to the following questions. Be sure to point out strengths as well as weaknesses; however, avoid telling the writer what to write. The more extensive you are with your comments, the more help your classmates will receive. Opening of theParagraph: Are the sources clearly introduced, with some brief summary and/or introduction of the authors? Is the writer's topic sentence for the paragraph clearly stated? Does it present a clear position on the sources, clearly comparing or contrasting them? Is it limited or too broad? Body of the Paragraph: Is the paragraph logically and effectively organized, with good focus? Are the points well supported by evidence (quotations or paraphrase from the source)? Where would you like to hear more evidence? Are the sources documented correctly, using MLA style? Are the points well supported by analysis of the evidence? Where would you like to hear more? Are there appropriate and effective transitions between sentences and ideas? Are you convinced by the writer’s evidence and analysis? Why or why not? Does the paragraph provide a wrap-up or summary sentence? Is it an effective sentence? Why or why not? Voice and Style: Check for wordiness, awkward sentences, and misspelled words. If you find these errors, mention them in your comments by telling the writer where you think they are in the paper (i.e. 1st para., 3rd sent.) Is the paper's style appropriate for its audience and purpose? Does the writer use an appropriate tone for writing for an argument? Does this writer seem overly judgmental? overly sentimental? credible? honest? educated? Are there some places where this attitude is more obvious than others? Is the writer's voice consistent? As the writer goes between quotes and evidence from the sources to his/her own interpretation, are there bumps and obvious voice shifts? This is what needs to be reviewed Should covid vaccines be mandatory? While Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at NYU Grossman School of medicine, defends the fact Covid vaccines should be mandatory for everyone, Pilita Clark and Emma Jacobs from Financial Time are debating on this topic. Caplan is wondering “why is the public health community not fighting for mandatory vaccination?” He also thinks it is absurd that people don’t want to get vaccinated as a data on the vaccines are “huge and positive.” On the contrary Clark and Jacobs think there is more to that “companies are unsure how to handle stuff who object to jabs on medical or religious grounds, or because they are pregnant” this demonstrates that there is more to the question people have concerns or because of their medical condition can’t receive a vaccine. Should people be blamed for that? However, the authors all agree on the fact that the vaccine is a great way to fight the pandemic, but Clark and Jacobs insist that not everyone has access to a vaccination center, some developing countries don’t have access to this resource, yet which would be discriminatory in an international business environment. In his article, Caplan expresses his disagreement about compensation for getting vaccinated while Clark and Jacobs think it is a good idea to encourage reluctant people. The authors are sharing different views on the vaccination process. Caplan wants to make the vaccine mandatory, but with their approach, Clark and Jacobs know the vaccine is important yet we need to understand the position of those who can’t or choose not to receive the vaccine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.