Paper 2 vs Paper 3 Reflection

My approach to and basic process for writing papers two and three was the same- I started with an outline (based on in class labs), then wrote a rough draft, got peer feedback, made edits, and then ultimately I ended up with a polished final paper. But, writing the papers was different because the position paper was a lot more complex, so it took longer to put together. I had to pick a topic that I cared about, take a position on it, and then establish that opinion as credible. My topic, the captivity of orcas in marine parks, is a complex issue and is the subject of much debate. So, I had to do a lot of research on all aspects of the topic, find credible sources (and cite them properly), and then figure out how to incorporate the information from those sources into my paper to support my thesis, while still having my own thoughts as the main points. Whereas with the ad analysis, I was picking ads that fit together to support a claim and breaking down and analyzing each ad to their smallest details. Overall, I enjoyed writing both papers because I was passionate about the topics.

In Class Lab- Analyzing An Argument

1 Tori Baker's Essay

          What is the claim?

a.     The main point is that the use of dangerous ingredients in cosmetic products needs to be regulated to stop the spread of diseases they cause.

b.     The thesis is clearly stated at the end of the first paragraph, “These lethal ingredients in cosmetics need to be regulated, otherwise cancer among other diseases will continue to spread.”  

2.    What support does the writer offer for the claim?

a.     She discusses how the products we use everyday can and do negatively impact our health without us realizing. For example, exposure to some of the chemicals can contribute to the development of breast cancer or talcum powder causing ovarian cancer.

b.     Yes, she uses facts, statistics, examples, and expert testimonials.

c.      Yes, the reasons are plausible and they bring up an important issue because so many use these products and might not know the possible health consequences. The support for her claims is sufficient, as she uses a lot of facts to back them up.

3.    How evenhandedly does the writer present the issues?

a.     Yes, she mentions the fact that cosmetic companies claim that the dangerous ingredients no longer in their products and that “natural” products would be more expensive, and therefore they would not be purchased. But, she refutes them with facts, citing studies that have found toxic ingredients in cosmetics and that Target has distributing Pacifica (a chemical free brand) and that it is affordable.

b.     She acknowledges the counterarguments, but explains (reasonably) to her readers why they are invalid, and she provides facts for support.

c.      She dismisses the other arguments, but it is not off-putting because she does it with logic and facts.

d.     Her arguments are not generalizations. They are specific and backed up with  appropriate sources.

4.    What authorities or sources of outside information does the writer use?

a.     The sources are used to support her claims by providing facts and statistics.

b.     The sources are credible. She uses reputable sites like The New York Times, Colby College, Environmental Working Group.

c.      Yes, her sources are very current (all from at least 2010)

5.     How does the writer address you as a reader?

a.     No, she does not assume the audience knows about the cosmetics. She provides sufficient background information at the beginning, but it is not done in a condescending way, it sets up the topic nicely.

b.     Her language includes me, she uses phrases like “us”, “our”, and “you” in her paper. Also, her topic itself of cosmetics includes her audience because it is so relatable- we all use cosmetic products! And many people are not aware of their potential dangers.

c.      Yes, we share an interest and regard for our health and the ingredients in the products we use.

Position Paper Rough Draft

Carmen Smith

English 101

Begert

            Each year, more than 11 million people visit a SeaWorld Theme Park in the United States (Barkham). SeaWorld provides its guests with an up close look at animals not easily observable in the wild and dazzling performances featuring the animals and their trainers. But, at what cost is this entertainment? As a visitor in the park, it is easy to overlook the health of the animals when SeaWorld puts its best face forward and you are in awe of the animals and their tricks. However, we as a society must not support the captivity of orca whales for the sake of our entertainment. Taking whales from the wild and keeping them in captivity is detrimental to their physical and emotional health, leads to aggression and abnormal behavior, which is dangerous not only for the whales, but for the trainers as well.

            Since 1961, at least 151 orca whales have been captured from the wild and put into parks like SeaWorld. Of those 151, 127 are now dead. That is a nearly 85% mortality rate, and 162 total orcas have died in captivity. Currently, there are 56 orcas in captivity; 24 captured from the wild and the remaining 34 are captive born. The whales are spread out among 14 marine parks in eight different countries, with SeaWorld having 24 (WDC).

           

            Orcas are highly intelligent and social animals. In the wild, they live in tight, matrilineal pods, and even when they reach sexual maturity, they chose to continue living with their immediate families (Cronin). When a place like SeaWorld captures orcas, they typically rip them away from their families at a young age, severing their family bonds. Even if multiple family members are captured, they are normally separated in captivity. Knowing that orcas are capable of making and consistently do make these lifelong bonds, how can SeaWorld, or anyone for that matter, say that the whales are not affected or harmed when the bonds are broken? The orcas, already traumatized from being captured and taken away from their families, are then forced into tiny pens with other newly captured whales and expected to get along with them.

            In the wild, the average lifespan of orcas is between 30-50 years old, while males can live up to 60-70 and females up to 80-90 years old. 92% of SeaWorld’s orcas do not make it to age 25, and the average age at death is 13 years old (WDC). Although life span is a complicated statistic to measure, and there are many factors involved, it is clear that orca whales are living shorter lives in captivity than they are in the wild. The question then becomes why. Why are whales living shorter lives in captivity? It seems as though that in an environment with no predators, a consistent food supply, and medical attention when needed, these whales should be living longer and healthier lives than their wild counterparts. But, that is not the case, and it is because captivity is detrimental to the health of the whales.

            In captivity, all male whales, and most females have collapsed dorsal fins. The dorsal fin is the fin on the top of their back that stabilizes them and assists in turning. SeaWorld claims that a collapsed dorsal fin “isn’t an indicator of the animal’s health or well-being” (Cronin). But, in the wild, it is extremely rare, and when a whale does have a collapsed fin, it is typically a sign of poor health or an injury. In captivity, whales spend most of their time swimming in shallow water in one direction, causing the water pressure to weigh heavily on one side. Also, the whales do not get the same amount of fluids and hydration from frozen fish as they would get from live fish in the wild. These factors cause the dorsal fin tissue to atrophy and for the fin to flop to one side.

            A more serious health threat than the collapsed dorsal fins is the poor oral health of captive orcas at SeaWorld. This is more prominent in male whales; as they are stressed out and trying to establish dominance by biting the steel gates that separate the whales, as well as exhibiting threat behaviors, like barking and jaw popping. Out of boredom, the whales also pick paint off the bottom of the pools or run their mouths along the cages. These behaviors can result in cracked and broken teeth with the pulp exposed. This condition rarely happens in the wild, as the whales are not being moved from group to group, so there is less of a need to establish dominance, and there is no boredom resulting from mundane life in a small cage. At SeaWorld, to treat the broken teeth, a modified pulpotomy is performed. Trainers drill holes into the teeth to remove the pulp and this is done with no anesthesia. According to a former SeaWorld trainer, who prefers to remain anonymous, “The whales are conditioned to ‘accept’ the noise, heat, vibration, and obvious pain associated with drilling vertically through the tooth column into the fleshy pulp below. Success is measured by blood spilling out of the hole, in which case its apparent the bore is complete (The Orca Project). These procedures leave the tooth, and the whale, susceptible to infection and disease. Most of SeaWorld’s orcas have chronic dental problems, and whales Kalina and Kenau died of Acute Bacterial Septicemia and Hemorrhagic Bacterial Pneumonia, respectively, resulting from dental procedures. The poor dental health of the whales is a direct result from captivity, and the inhumane procedures used to remedy the problem only make matters worse by causing infection, disease, and even death.

            There is no record of an orca whale killing a human in the wild. However, in captivity, there have been over 100 “aggressive acts” towards humans and four deaths (WDC). In particular, the whale Tilikum, who has been involved in the deaths of three people, including the violent drowning of his trainer Dawn Brancheau in 2010 at SeaWorld Orlando that was heavily featured in CNN’s 2013 documentary Blackfish. Former SeaWorld Orlando employee Samantha Berg said of Tilikum, “He reacts out of frustration and boredom after being cooped up since he was two years old”. SeaWorld alone, since 1965, has had 95 aggressive incidents with whales, ranging from a trainer just being pushed around to a trainer being killed (Cronin). The whales are also aggressive to each other, due to tensions and anxiety from living so close together. Although fights do happen in the wild, the whales have room to flee, in captivity; they do not, which results in serious injuries and death. Chuck Tompkins, SeaWorld’s curator of zoological operations stated, “We don’t put any animal in any stressful situation” (Worrall). Just being in captivity is a stressful situation for an orca, let alone having to live in close quarters with stranger orcas and being forced to perform.

            SeaWorld’s main claim to justify the captivity of orcas is that it provides an opportunity for research, stating, “We create a controlled setting for science that is impossible to replicate in the wild” (Raja). However, SeaWorld affiliated researchers have published very few studies. There have only been 48 studies published in the last 40 years, and just seven since 2010, despite the researchers having 24/7 access to the whales (Raja). Their production of studies does not support their claim that they provide this rare opportunity for research.

            According to former SeaWorld trainer John Hargrove, the discussion about orcas in captivity is “part of a larger debate on the ethics of humankind’s relationship with other inhabitants of this planet” (Worrall). Reducing orcas to objects for human entertainment and subjecting them to conditions that are bad for their physical and emotional health is a tragedy and should not be tolerated, let alone supported.

Works Cited

Barkham, Patrick. "Blackfish, SeaWorld and the Backlash against Killer Whale Theme Park Shows." The Guardian. N.p., 11 Dec. 2013. Web. 24 Nov. 2015.

Cronin, Aisling Maria. "Killer Whales Don't Belong In Captivity." One Green Planet. N.p., 27 Nov. 2013. Web. 26 Nov. 2015.

Raja, Tasneem. "SeaWorld Says It Has To Keep Orcas In Captivity To Save Them." Mother Jones. N.p., Nov. 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

"The Fate of Captive Orcas." WDC, Whale and Dolphin Conservation. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

"The Hidden Cost Of Captivity." The Orca Project. N.p., 25 Sept. 2010. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

Worrall, Simon. "Former Trainer Slams SeaWorld for Cruel Treatment of Orcas." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 29 Mar. 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

             

Incorporating Sources Effectively

               
1. In the article "Organic foods: Are they safer?", the Mayo Clinic Staff states, "Organic farming practices are designed to designed to benefit the environment by reducing pollution and conserving water and soil quality."

In her article "17 Essential Reasons to Eat Organic", Michelle Schoffro Cook warns about the dangers of genetically modified foods, stating that, "The results range from intestinal damage, allergies, liver or pancreatic problems, testicular cellular changes, and even death in the experimental animals."

Christie Wilcox, in her article "Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming>Conventional Agriculture, cautions readers about believing everything they hear that is pro-organic, stating "Organic farming does have many potential upsides, and may indeed be the better way to go in the long run, but it really depends on technology and what we discover and learn in the future."

2. book, book, online magazine, website, book

3.  Works Cited:

Mayo Clinic Staff. "Organic Foods: Are They Safer? More Nutritious?." Nutrition and Healthy Eating. Mayo Clinic, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.       

 Schoffro Cook, Michelle. "17 Essential Reasons to Eat Organic Food." Care2, 4 Apr. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.   

Wilcox, Christie. "Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming Conventional Agriculture." Scientific   American Global RSS. Scientific American, 18 July 2011. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Collaborative: Spriggs article vs our articles

1.       We all agreed that Spriggs made a convincing argument, and proved her point in evidentiary support.  Specifically, she showed how local farming strengthens local economies, and reduces financial and environmental costs of shipping foods (produce, dairy, etc…) around the world.

2.       She addressed the counter-argument by giving it credibility, but said it is important to buy food that grows naturally in the environment around you, as much as you can.  She also stated that small farms are more efficient, despite the common misconception that larger farms produce more food.

3.       We said that using pathos, Spriggs can effectively persuade the reader that there is a need for people to buy locally.  By pointing out that almost all glaciers will be gone in National Parks by 2050, and talking about the treatment of animals she is able to establish her argument’s credibility.  It gives the reader a sense of responsibility in the issue.

4.       The picture of the semi – trucks, give you a visual of the environmental issues she is talking about.  They allow the reader to see just how big they are, and likely how much gas they use.  They also break up the text and give a visual aid.

Facebook dislike button article

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/18/why_facebook_should_never_ever_add_a_dislike_button_partner/

pg. 100 1-4

1. Yes, Spriggs has convinced me that buying local is a topic that matters. But, I am biased on this subject because growing up, my family has always tried to buy local when we can. Spriggs, however convinces the audience that this is a topic that matters by explaining the economical and ecological benefits to supporting local farms-strenghtening local economies, small farms are typically more sustainable than larger farms, shipping food across the country is expensive financially and ecologically.

2. Spriggs addresses the counterargument that buying locally can have negative environmental effects, in particular Alex Avery's claim that  "buy food from the world region where it grows best." Spriggs acknowledged this by saying that he makes a good point (which shows she is fair and reasonable, strengthening her credibility) and says that buying local should be buying as much locally as possible. She also addresses the claim that buying locally is detrimental to the environment because small farms are not as efficient. Spriggs says this is a misconception and provides evidence (small farms are more efficient in total output of all crops) for support.

3. I think the section of the essay from "Not only are small farms a more sustainable..." (pg. 96) to "The environmental benefits now, and in the long run of buying local outweigh any such immediate disadvantages." (pg. 98) is the most effective section. Spriggs incorporates all of the genre features from page 66. She has an explicit position (we should buy local!) and supports it in an authoritative tone with sufficient evidence. For example, small farms are more sustainable, and have less financial and ecological burdens. Spriggs also addresses her counterarguments (as discussed in question 2)  in this section, which strengthens her credibility. She appeals to readers values here as well, because who wouldn't want to help their environment and support their community's economy.

4. First of all, the pictures help break up the text since it is lengthy. But, also, they give the reader visuals related to what they are reading about, which help support Spriggs's argument.