The environment, in the Encarta Dictionary, is defined as
the natural world; it is also known this way when it is harmed by humans. The
blog I will be starting today will be about the environment, and the choices we
make that affect it. A majority of us have already tried to do our part in
helping the environment by reducing, recycling, and reusing. However,
protecting and preserving the environment is limited to who it is. A child who
is motivated to do their part most likely won’t be as influential as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is why corporations should try to
limit their ruthless impact on the planet and set forth an example. Some of you may say that
corporations are not the only ones to blame, for they expand due to the demand
of the public. However, that might not be always true because some businesses know
the impact of their expansions, so why would they do it? The answer is most likely avarice,
but justified with the popular demand of people.
I will try to do this topic justice, for it is a very extensive
topic. Also I would like to express one
more thought. The environment provides us with everything we have and need. Whether something was artificially created or
synthetically made by humans, the basic compounds to produce the item were
found on this planet. We live on a gold mine! We have to preserve it.
How about using a specific definition with quotes here for "environment"? I ask because the phrasing you use to define the "environment" is a bit strange. The environment is defined as "the way it is harmed by humans"? What does that mean exactly?
ReplyDeleteLook at the construction of your argument. A majority do our part (how do you know?--data). Children can be motivated (sure), but they won't be as influential as the EPA (right--necessary to state, though?). So corporations *should* act on the best interests of children? Is that even a possibility? What is the EPA for if it's not to halt corporations' environmental actions?
When you want to construct an argument, don't immediately rely on the ethos tactic (the appeal to emotion). It won't always work. In this post, it looks like you're calling to readers (the majority) and children as a rationale for everyone to behave. If only it worked that way, right? I am in agreement with you about the environment--we have go to stand up and do something about it, and one person (child, adult) is certainly not as powerful as a government agency. Avarice is entirely the reason for watchdog agencies, wouldn't you agree?
I like your final paragraph, and I look forward to learning more this semester with your writing.