Paragraphs C & D

(C)
Online chat rooms have become a great source of communication. In the case of students, they provide a break from the school environment, a stress release, a way to meet new people. However, universities have begun to utilize chat rooms' communication abilities. Students can now talk with other students about help with studying, any questions they may have, and other course information. This tool has even found its way into my Biology class and lets me discuss the lectures and labs with my peers. This ability of chat rooms to create a learning environment outside of class is why they are becoming more prominent in school environments.
Whenever people are communicating over the internet, there are always concerns of security. Luckily, a lot of classes around campus have set up private chat rooms exclusive only to students registered for that class. This ensures that outsiders cannot gain access to the room.

(D)
During the Watts riots in Los Angeles, CA, police officers employed guns as means of protection, and led to the shootings of some looters and perpetrators (Knutson and Revering 64). Is there no better way of dealing with criminals than simply gunning them down? In 1979, UCLA University Officers found an alternative to the deadly force that guns cause. Dogs became the preferred method of dealing with gangs around campus housing developments. Results came fast as the gangs relocated after encounters with the canine force. Although some suspects claimed to have been bitten badly, these cases are extremely rare compared to the many documented good deeds and rescues involving human lives performed by police canines. Clearly dogs are a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons.

C- The author of this paragraph needed to separate the paragraph into two. The first needed to introduce the idea of chat rooms in schools and the second to give a reason that backs up the claim that they are beneficial to students.

D- This paragraph simply needed better organization.

Coherence Devices

*Body image is something that has always been linked with the era's cultural beliefs. In the Classical Period, namely in Greece, beauty was a full-formed woman, not disproportionate in any aspect, or a proportional man. [@Whereas, today, this is] obviously not the case for the average person. Evidence of this can be seen on magazine covers, on television, and even in music. Models today, who are supposed to be people who would look best in certain clothing, are often in much better shape than those who will be buying the clothes. Some people see this and wish that their own bodies resembled these models. [@This is an example] of how peoples' body-images are affected directly by cultural surroundings.

*Even within subgroups of cultures, body-image changes. African-Americans and Caucasian American often have different views on what makes a good body type, and it's not a case within skin color. [@For example], Caucasian Europeans or Africans may have completely differing opinions on the preferred body-image than their cousins across the Atlantic may have. [@This is also an example of] how cultures, not race, construct body-image.

[@Within particular cultures], such as American culture, body-image is not only linked to cultural ideals but to economics as well. [@This is] what Michael Rosenwald tries to say in his article titled Why America Has to Be Fat. He gives reasons as to why the economy has allowed and will continue to allow obesity in America. *The way our culture and economics intertwine is conducive to a body-image crisis among the people while it sustains the opposite image through economics.

“This exercise actually didn’t bother me. I enjoy breaking down text in order to find its inner-workings. It helps understand how you write and how you use coherence devices in writing.”

Tiger Burn.

This 'tradition' of burning the Clemson tiger, I had never heard of until I came across it this morning on the front page of the Daily Gamecock. Nevertheless, I think it would have been cool to see a giant tiger burn to ground Despite this, in light of recent tragedy, it doesn't matter how cool I think it is, it would obviously strike a bad chord with many students. So the university rightfully decided to change the 'Tiger Burn' to a 'Tiger Tear Down'. All in all, I think this was the right decision. If the tradition had been allowed to continue, it would bring back too many terrible memories for students who were affected by the beach house fire. Not only that, the single tiger tiger burning might symbolize to many the single Clemson student who died in the blaze.
I think it's pretty obvious that last year was the last year of the 'Tiger Burn' since every year, students will want to remember their fallen comrades, and every year, the school will use this reason to do something different.
'Tiger Tear Down' still has a ring to it, heck, maybe they'll fill a big tiger full of candy. That would get me pumped.

Question 5, Ch. 7.

Jamie Lincoln Kitman's essay on hybrid vehicles is very interesting. He claims that despite all of the incentives and reasons for buying a hybrid car, only a small number of situations actually benefit from the supposed higher gas mileage and environmentally friendly promises. The electric-gas powered motors only work at a high efficiency if they are driven in the cities. While some hybrids work beautifully in towns, and being the United States a mainly suburban society, driving at high speeds like on highways causes the hybrid vehicle to work just as inefficiently as any gasoline-powered vehicle. He also brings up the point that the government wants to reward drivers of hybrid by giving them various incentives. He argues this is not fair because some hybrids still work with less efficiency than conventional vehicles.
Since Kitman is a professional test-driver and writer for driving magazine, his arguments sound more believable and authentic. He has obviously driven many vehicles and knows all about how cars work. This allows him to very persuasive, since he knows so much on the issue.
Patrick Moore, who was the co-founder of the Greenpeace organization, wrote a piece on why nuclear power is important for the future of environmental and power conservation in America. His argument is that there is no better choice of a source for electrical energy than nuclear power, and gives bulleted reasons as to why some misconceptions are untrue and to why there is not much to worry about when it comes to safety.
In the 1970's, Greenpeace strongly opposed nuclear power whether it be for war or for energy. Since then, however, Moore has changed his stance. If the co-founder of a successful, pacifistic, and non-nuclear organization born during the Cold War decided to change his mind on a fundamental issue, then he must have had a legitimate reason for doing so. This makes his arguments, overall, more believable, since he is a convert.

III. Question 4

In Kluger's TIME Magazine article about the effects of global warming and what should be done about them, he explains a multitude of different problems within the environment and how pollution and CO2 emissions have caused them. He describes grandiose scenarios where part of Florida is under water, or great hurricanes will pillage cities like never before. He tells us to be worried (in the title) and inserts words like 'drought', 'deluge', and cites daunting statistical figures to back up his claim.
Richard Lindzen, on the other hand, describes a world where global warming does indeed exist and CO2 is the cause. However, he says that this does not warrant the amount of alarm as it has. He says that dissenting scientists such as himself are quieted by environmentalist groups and scientists who are backed by them. He gives a couple reasons as to why some of the mainstream scientific belief that global warming will be the end of the world is extreme and does not use proper scientific data.
While I am partial to Mr. Lindzen's stance on the topic, objectively, Kluger has done a superior job of convincing me of the dangers of global warming. He cites many more sources and provides much more evidence of global warming. He convinced me that there is really a problem with our planet right now, and something must be done to save it.
Yet, perhaps these are the desired effects of these scare tactics Lindzen writes about.

II. Topic Proposal

After writing my exploratory paper on the effects of illegal online music sharing, I found that the current system set up by the record companies, which disallows online music sharing, is only beneficial to themselves. It does not give enough to the artists and overcharges the costumers for music they can find for free online.
In this policy paper, I will appeal to my audience's bias toward music sharing, as most of them already do it. Also I will point out how record companies condemn sharing because they it means they are not in control. As stated in my exploratory paper, professional studies have been made that show no significant loss in revenue from music downloading. Music is art, and art should be free.
As far as research goes, I will most likely add a source or two more. The ones I have right now are mainly professional studies on music sharing. If I am to convince my audience of my policy change, they are going to need sources of information that are more on their level. I may quote various blogs or other public forums of opinion to grasp what some people think about online music sharing.

1. Point IV

1. The three perspectives I covered in my exploratory paper were those from the record companies, the artists, and the listeners. At the moment it is clear that power is being taken away from the record companies and more opportunities are available for listeners and musicians to consume and distribute music. It is because the RIAA and its constituents have not kept up with technology and modernity that their business model no longer works. People are finding and enjoying music more than ever before through the use of online sharing, and due to this, internet users and a whole generation has embraced an illegal method of acquiring music.
2. If you want to make an omelet, if have to break some eggs. Either the record companies change their plans and allow music sharing, finding some other way of gaining profit, or simply go away forever. Music is undoubtedly a form of art. Other art forms can be copied and shared at a lesser quality, so why not music too? The main focus of artists today is changing from the old ways of stardom, money, and fame to a focus on artistic authenticity, where some of the best artists are making music simply so they can be heard and enjoyed.

3. In order to write this as a policy paper, it must be understood that what I want done is the abolishment or weakening of the current policies. Although it is unfortunate that the record companies are going to fall, overall, from the artists only lose just a fraction of their earnings
in exchange for more publicity on the net. So if online music sharing is allowed fully with exception if the sharer is gaining profit from it, then the music industry will become less of an industry and more of an art, as it should be.