Paragraph Cohesion Exercise

C) The chat room is a good tool to use inside and outside the classroom. Chat rooms provide a break from the school environment, a stress release, and allow a space to meet people. These people can be from all over the world, or even your next door neighbor. Chat rooms are also very effective resources because they have allowed me to converse with other members of my biology class to discuss lectures and labs. A lot of classes on campus have chat rooms set up privately for only the students registered in that class.

D) In LA, the use of dogs in the police force has been rejected and the use of weapons is preferred. During the Watts riots, officers employed guns as means of protection: some looters and perpetrators were killed. Clearly, dogs are a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons. The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force. Although suspects have claimed to be badly bitten, tese cases are extremely rare compared to the many documented good deeds and rescues involving human lives performed by canines. At UCLA, canines were first introduced in 1979 to aid university officers in protecting the saftey of students from nearby gangs. The gangs relocated due to the use of canines.

Checking Cohesive Devices

*Even with the recent publications that deal with the devastating effects of smoking, people continue to smoke. If they want to suck chemicals into their bodies,[ that is their choice. @ However,] when the secondhand smoke they produce begins to affect those around them, something needs to be done.

*In my paper, I will discuss a policy that supports the use of smoking bans in many public places, but not in places where a great deal of the revenue comes from smoking, such as in hookah and cigar bars. I will discuss the negative health effects of secondhand smoke, the health improvements experienced by employees when smoking was banned from an establishment that previously allowed it, the negligible effects of smoking bans on revenues, the arguments against claims that say smoking bans are unconstitutional, and the reason that a few exceptions should be made. I have a decent amount of information as of right now, but I feel like I will need to do some more research as I write my paper so I can better support my claim.

Tiger Burn

I can understand why the university would want to cancel tiger burn, but I think it is time to get some closure. I knew a girl that died in the fire, and it was good to go to the memorial services and talk about her, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. I think that if people keep dwelling on the fact that those students are gone, they will never find the closure that they need. USC has been very supportive to everyone through this, but I don't think cancelling tiger burn is really going to do anything besides make a lot of the students angry. I honestly believe that the students who died would want us to get on with our lives and continue with tradition.

Question 5

Essentially, both Moore and Kitman argue that hybrid vehicles and nuclear energy will only be effective when they are used intelligently. Moore states that many people believe that just because a car is labeled as a hybrid that they will be saving a lot of gas and money. That is not the case in most instances however. Moore uses the Toyota Prius to illustrate this point. The Prius is advertised to get fifty to sixty miles per gallon, but what most people don’t understand is that the Prius’ seemingly amazing gas mileage only occurs during city driving. When a Prius is driven on the Highway, it uses just as much gas as the next car. He also points out that just because a car is labeled as a hybrid, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will get much better mileage than its regular competitors.

Kitman, one of the founders of Greenpeace, is one of the last people I would think of as an advocate for the use of nuclear energy. In his article, he very effectively breaks down the myths about nuclear energy and supplies his own information to refute those myths. He states that the coal burning power plants in our country account for almost ten percent of the carbon dioxide emissions for the whole world. He also explores the other options of wind and solar power, but goes on to explain why they are undependable sources of energy. All in all, I think both authors were decently persuasive. They both have backgrounds in their respective fields, but their arguments would have been more effective article if they had cited the scientific sources that could help support their arguments.

Question 4

Both Kluger and Lindzen’s articles deal with the topic of global warming, but Kluger’s article seems to deal more with the causes and effects of global warming, whereas Lindzen discusses the recent trend towards alarmism when discussing global warming. Kluger treats the rise in carbon dioxide emissions as the main cause of global warming and natural disasters, but Lindzen states that not enough research has been conducted to prove this. Kluger discusses the negative effects of greenhouse gasses that have now increased due to a rise in carbon dioxide emissions and the effect that warmer temperatures are having on the poles and sea levels.

I found Kluger’s argument to be more effective due to the fact that he seemed to have more scientific evidence behind him. Lindzen had some good points, but I felt like he complained about alarmism too much in his article. I especially liked Kluger’s explanation of the numerous biofeedback loops that have begun or have been disrupted due to global warming. He showed how the rise of carbon dioxide emissions is related to the rising sea level, the thawing of the permafrost, and recent discovery of drowned polar bears, which is something that wasn’t really seen until recently.

Topic Proposal for Policy Paper

Even with the recent publications that deal with the devastating effects of smoking, people continue to smoke. If they want to suck chemicals into their bodies, that is their choice, but when the secondhand smoke they produce begins to affect those around them, something needs to be done.

In my paper, I will discuss a policy that supports the use of smoking bans in many public places, but not in places where a great deal of the revenue comes from smoking, such as in hookah and cigar bars. I will discuss the negative health effects of secondhand smoke, the health improvements experienced by employees when smoking was banned from an establishment that previously allowed it, the negligible effects of smoking bans on revenues, the arguments against claims that say smoking bans are unconstitutional, and the reason that a few exceptions should be made. I have a decent amount of information as of right now, but I feel like I will need to do some more research as I write my paper so I can better support my claim.

Point IV

1) Smoking bans should be put into effect
Smoking bans should not be put into effect
Smoking bans should only be put into effect in certain places

As of right now, the dominant perspective is that smoking bans should be put into effect. The main reason that people support smoking bans is because they believe that the bans will protect the health of the nonsmokers who are around the secondhand smoke produced by the smokers, like bartenders and waitresses. They also believe that people who go to restaurants and other public places shouldn’t be inconvenienced by the smoke that smokers produce. Almost all of the arguments that support smoking bans are backed by scientific research and evidence that shows the danger of secondhand smoke and how health issues have improved in people who work in establishments that allowed smoking until a smoking ban was put into effect.

2) I think the perspective that supports smoking bans should be most dominant. The safety of others should outweigh a person’s desire to smoke. If someone wants to smoke, they should do it in a place where only they are affected.

3) If laws are passed to prevent smoking in restaurants and other public places, then my perspective would be enforced as a policy.