Each of these responses should be at least 150 words.

In your response to your classmates, find a student who wrote about a different essay from the “Issues Facing the International Community” list, and comment on your classmate’s discussion of his/her chosen essay. Do you agree with his or her analysis of this essay? Why? The why is key – please post a rich response to your classmate. You may also respond to your classmate’s discussion of the Toulmin argumentation model.

Here are the 4 responses:

1. Zachary

I chose to read the essay “Where to Go From Here” by Richard N. Haass. I chose to read this one because I find foreign policy to be interesting and, because I am in the military, it is relevant to my life. The essay discusses the Middle East, more specifically Iraq and Syria, and North Korea. I think these issues pertain to me and really anyone in the United States. The essay is not peer reviewed, but it is scholarly written. I know because I researched Richard N. Haass and found that he is an American diplomat and has done a lot of work in foreign relations to include advising both the Republican and Democratic Party on foreign policy issues during the 2008 elections. The claim for this essay is, “But for that to happen, the administration will have to act with considerably greater discipline and work to frame its policies toward regional and global issues as part of a coherent, strategic approach to international relations that benefits the United States, its allies and partners, and the world at large.” (Haass) Haass proves this claim by discussing how the United States, more specifically the Trump Administration, should go about solving current foreign relation and policy issues. For example, Haass says, “Another element of responsible behavior is continued support for international aid and development, which is a cost-effective way to promote American values and interest simultaneously.” (Haass) Here Haass is giving his input on ways the United States can help itself by helping others. This essay is not using the Toulmin method. The essay only through Haass’s viewpoint and how he would go about solving the different foreign relation scenarios.

I Have not used the Toulmin method before. I think it is a new writing technique that I can use to help sell things in the future. Using this method helps to show how the opposing view has points, but how your point is better. Some of the feedback I can use from my first essay is changing the placement of my transition sentences. I was using them as the last sentence in a paragraph instead of the opening paragraph of that topic. I hope to make my conclusion better for this next essay, as well as be less redundant with my wording.

2. Alek

I chose this article because the topic was interesting and the usage of the author’s pathos appealed to me. Learning about how a majority of a generation has prosthetic limbs and kids going to school only to learn how to avoid landmines was astonishing. I can’t relate to any of the issues shared in the article, and for that, I’m quite thankful for. I can’t imagine having to wake up everyday knowing I’m at risk of losing my limbs or my life.

I believe this article is not peer reviewed because of the information presented and where it was published. The article is an informative piece; educating the readers about Cambodia and its journey to have a safer future. He used statistics such as, “In 1999, Cambodia had a gross national income (GNI) of $10 billion and a per capita annual income of $820; 11 years later, in 2010, the GNI had almost tripled to $29 billion, and personal income had more than doubled to $2,040” (Jenkins), but there were no references on where he got the information. The article also came from a writer that works for National Geographic and not an educational institution.

Jenkins’ claim was, “Land mines once crippled a war-ravaged Cambodia. Today the nation is a model for how to recover from this source”. He supports his claim sharing the stories of people he has interviewed about their lives after the Vietnam war and how they changed. In a interview with Thath Khiev, Jenkins stated, “We did not have enough food to eat, Khiev tells me. We could not grow rice on our own land because the soldiers had laid the mines — Now we can walk safely to the rice fields and work freely without fear of mines, — It’s safe for little children. If they want to swim in the river, in the lake, they can.” Jenkins also shared Cambodia’s GNI increase since 1999 and how it almost tripled after 11 years (See above for quote). This was due to the economy growing stronger as more land mines were diffused to make room for farms.

Jenkins, Mark. “The Healing Fields.” National Geographic, vol. 221, no. 1, 2012, pp. 96-115. https://web-b-ebscohost-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=79637ef9-1ebe-42a5-b900-c4e2b344590c%40sessionmgr120&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=70082268&db=aph. Accessed 1 May 2018.

I have never used the Toulmin model in any of my past essays as a student or in my work place. I don’t know if I’ll use the Toulmin model in the future, as I can’t see myself typing more essays (I don’t enjoy it to be honest), but using it verbally is a possibility. I acknowledge the importance of the structure that builds the model and I can use it to persuade my audience about almost anything… VERBALLY!

3. Nicholas

I chose the article titled “The Next Safety Net” for this week’s forum.I chose it because I’ve been reading a lot about these types of issues in the press lately.With the increased automation of “basic” and blue-collar skills, it’s changing the face of our workforce and the available jobs.While the article is from a scholarly source, I don’t believe it was peer reviewed.While the author’s credentials show they are experts in their fields, there are no studies referenced, no bibliography, and the publisher doesn’t state their published works are peer reviewed by practice. If it were peer reviewed, I believe the dates it was submitted, reviewed, etc. would be listed in the abstract, but it only lists the scholarly journal under the source type.

I believe the claim was offered right at the beginning of paragraph one, “As advanced economies become more automated and digitized, almost all workers will be affected, but some more than others (Colin and Palier).”I don’t believe the article followed the Toumlin method since it definitely lacked a clear qualifier and rebuttal piece.The article was informative, stating an issue and then expanding on the perceived problem, and ending in a few options for correction.

Works Cited

Colin, Nicolas, and Bruno Palier. “The Next Safety Net.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 94, no. 4, 2015, pp. 29-33. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/1691576728?accountid=8289.

I have definitely never used the Tomulin method in previous classes.I had never heard of it and am still struggling with defining some of the initial phases of the approach.I do see its merit though.Perhaps in high school we had to present our thoughts, and then the counter to our point to make it stronger, but that’s about as close as I believe I’ve ever gotten to using it previously.I don’t do this type of writing in my career, nor do I anticipate using it again for quite sometime since this is my last semester before finishing up my AA.

4. Armine

I have selected the essay “The Great Climate Experiment” by Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist working with Carnegie Institution for Science’s Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University. I chose this essay because erratic climate and the carbon footprints are important issues today with the US changing its stand and moving away from its leadership and commitment to control the carbon footprints. The present administration in the denial mode in addressing this pressing issue that impacts every person. In my opinion, saving the plant and regulating greenhouse gases is not a political issue, because it involves the future generations.

Caldeira discusses that the carbon emissions are related to erratic climate and acidification of oceans. In a nutshell, Caldeira predicts that the greenhouse gases will change the environment of the planet in future and raises the questions, “How far can we push the planet? “What are the ultimate limits of the change that we are causing?” These questions are his emotional appeals; the facts are the logical conclusions which he supports with examples and pieces of evidence. One such example is, “The Mayans had not developed enough resilience to weather small reductions in rainfall. The Mayans are not alone as examples of civilizations that failed to adapt to climate changes” (Caldeira). Are we following the Mayans? This question rings in my mind.

It is not peer-reviewed article. However, the author is a climate scientist and it appears in the journal of repute, Scientific American so it is scholarly. I checked the article by advance search and clicking the peer-reviewed box in the library databases.

Caldeira has used Toulmin’s method, but the article is less persuasive explicitly. He reveals the findings which paint a grim picture of future without being aggressive about his claim. What he portrays are scientific facts hence less debatable. He offers the grounds for his claim in the first few sentences, “BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT OR TECHNOLOGY forecasts usually look five or 10 years out, 50 years at most. Among climate scientists, there is some talk of century’s end” (Caldeira).

Claim:

“In reality, carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere today will affect Earth hundreds of thousands of years hence. Caldeira uses many warrants to support his claim” (Caldeira).

Warrants: “Weather is getting weirder, with storms fueled by the additional heat.” He supports his warrant with the facts—“As predicted, there has been more warming over land than over the oceans, more at the poles than near the equator, more in winter than in summer and more at night than in the day. Extreme downpours have become more common. In the Arctic, ice and snow cover less area, and methane-rich permafrost soils are beginning to melt” (Caldeira). The other warrant is, “Our greenhouse gas emissions are hitting this complex system with a hammer. I have presented a scenario in which our climate evolves fairly smoothly, but jumps and starts that could shock biological, social and political systems beyond the limits of their resilience are also possible” (Caldeira). The author gives ample support by describing the changed conditions in oceans, ice cover and atmosphere due to CO2.

Caldeira offers a counterargument when he writes, “Fortunately, ocean vaporization is not even a remote risk from today’s greenhouse gas emissions. Simply put, there is a limit to how much CO2 can heat the planet. Once CO2 and water vapor concentrations rise high enough, the molecules increasingly scatter the incoming sunlight, preventing it from getting any hotter.” But in next paragraph comes his rebuttal that “humans will breathe the same CO2 concentrations as the dinosaurs inhaled and experience similar temperatures. He supports his claim well when he says that the climate change can result in other social problems like migration and nuclear war in future. There are many pieces of evidence to support the author’s claim which is a scientific fact; therefore cannot be doubted.

Qualifier: “but we cannot be certain.” Not much use of qualifiers because most of his shreds of evidence are facts.

Part 2

I have never used Toulmin’s Method before. I’m trying to understand it better. The rap on YouTube is an interesting way to explain it in a nutshell.

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.