Next Essay: Technology Won't Feed the World's Hungry pg. 421
Assignment: For Wednesday read the essay located in page 421, and answer questions 1-5. I expect everybody bring the book since we will discuss it carefully.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Giovanna N. Montero Castillo
Prof. Sharon Diaz
English 3103, sec: 095
September 26, 2007
Assignment
1. How does Mittal frame her paragraph-long paraphrase of the claim of the UNDP within the opening paragraph of the essay?
She does it by bringing up the things that the UNDP has done and what it has ask the country to do.
2. Does Mittal’s reference to India as “my country” have any effect on her argument? Would the argument be as strong without the personal element? Why or why not?
Yes it has an effect on her essay it makes it stronger, more real. It might but I think that not because the personal makes it stronger, real and it makes people think “this person knows what she’s talking about”.
3. How does Mittal characterize the advocates of biotechnology who are the authors of the UNDP report?
She characterize them as trained technocrats, seduce by technological fixes.
4. According to Mittal, what is the role that corporations play in the promotion of biotechnology? How does this claim change her characterization of the motives for promoting such technology?
According to her the role the corporations play is that one of someone that is not helping the countries of hunger their only purpose is that one of improving biotechnology for their own personal gain if they really cared for hunger they would lower the praise of food so people can afford it. There motives are doing research that will only help them not others.
5. How effective is the colloquial language of the two-sentence concluding paragraph? Are there other examples of such language in the essay?
It is very effective it makes people think. Yes, there is at the beginning of the essay when she says “Don’t BE misled. Genetically engineered food is not an answer to world hunger.
Kasandra Viera Professor Sharon Diaz
English 3103, section 095
26 September 2007
1. How does Mittal frame her paragraph-long paraphrase of the claim of the UNDP within the opening paragraph of the essay?
She frames her paragraph-long paraphrase of the claim of the UNDP giving facts or information and making a comparison.
2. Does Mittal’s reference to India as “my country” have any effect on her argument? Would the argument be as strong without the personal element? Why or why not?
Yes it has an effect on her argument. The argument would not be as strong without the personal element because it makes you feel that she are part of the people affected and that makes more credible her argument.
3. How does Mittal characterize the advocates of biotechnology who are the authors of the UNDP report?
Mittal characterize the advocates saying that they are U.S. trained technocrats, seduced by technological fixes.
4. According to Mittal, what is the role that corporations play in the promotion of biotechnology? How does this claim change her characterization of the motives for promoting such technology?
The role of the corporations in the promotion of biotechnology is all about their benefits. They are not worry about the hungry of the poor people in the world they are making a healthy food but the cost of it will not allow poor people to buy it. So the motives to promote the biotechnology are not to feed the worlds hungry the real motives are to enrich their corporations.
5. How effective is the colloquial language of the two-sentence concluding paragraph? Are there other examples of such language in the essay?
The colloquial language is very effective because it makes you to reflect about it. There are other examples like when she said: ¨And if the poor in India are not able to buy two meals a day, how will they purchase nutritionally rich crops such as rice that is engineered to contain vitamin A? ¨ .
Ignacio Rodriguez
Prof. Sharon Diaz
English 3103- Section 095
September 26, 2007
Questions
1) Mittal frame her paragraph-long paraphrase of the claims of the UNPD by arguing that genetically engineered food cannot feed the world’s hunger. UNPD claims that biotechnology is the solution for world famine, but Mittal tells us that in India this cannot be done because, for example, the same farmers that are offered this technology refuse to sell and distribute it.
2) I think that by using the personal element Mittal does give a powerful argument because the reader can realize that she has studied and investigated with a helping purpose towards these social and cultural problems from her country.
3) Mittal characterizes the advocates of biotechnology as “U.S.-trained technocrats, seduced by technological fixes”.
4) According to Mittal, the roles that corporations play in the promotion of biotechnology is a manipulating one because they offered to developing countries newly created pesticides that poisoned the environment and made people sick. She claims that obviously this made a negative effect on nature and it didn’t even alleviate hunger.
5) I think that the colloquial language at the end is very effective because is precise and concise. Yes, in the first sentence she also uses colloquial language and a very precise sentence: “Don’t be misled. Genetically engineered food is not the answer to world hunger.
Juliann Acosta Cancel
Prof. Sharon Diaz
ENglish 30103 Section 095
Sept. 26, 2007.
Assignment:
1. How does Mittal frame her paragraph-long paraphrase of the claim of the UNDP within the opening paragraph of the essay?
She frames her opening paragraph by giving a fact: that "Genetically engineered food is not an answer to world hunger" and what the UNDP has said to do.
2. Does Mittal’s reference to India as “my country” have any effect on her argument? Would the argument be as strong without the personal element? Why or why not?
I think that it does make it more powerful since its talking about her countire which gives more of a personal feeling to it as she is seeing what is happening to India. Without this point it wouldnt be as powerful as it is only because she wouldnt feel as attached to it as she, in reality, does.
3. How does Mittal characterize the advocates of biotechnology who are the authors of the UNDP report?
She caracterizes them by saying: "...US.-trained technocrats, seduced by techonological fixes".
4. According to Mittal, what is the role that corporations play in the promotion of biotechnology? How does this claim change her characterization of the motives for promoting such technology?
The role that they play is they are trying to "help" the people by helping themselves: they want to feed the hungry but they dont "suceed" because they are not really willing to help them, all they are doing is "slashing public services and social-safety nets so that the food cant get to the needy". She also says that while they are supposely helping by giving the needy food which the poor cant buy because they are too poor and going to extreme measures because thats not really help; its like a major crisis in which the habitants from India are going desperate.
5. How effective is the colloquial language of the two-sentence concluding paragraph? Are there other examples of such language in the essay?
Its very effective because it makes us reason about their situation. Another colloquial language example are the first two sentences of the essay.
Francisco Hernandez
English 3103, Section 093
Professor Sharon Diaz
1. How does Mittal frame her paragraph-long paraphrase of the claims of the UNDP within the opening paragraphs of the essay?
I think she does this by saying that the UNDP’s reason for developing genetically engineered food is hunger in 3rd world nations.
2. Does Mittal reference to India as “my country” have any effect on her argument? Would the argument be as strong without the personal element?
She did get personal and I think the “my country” just might change the essay a bit; nonetheless the essay would be equally as strong.
3. How does Mittal characterize the advocates of biotechnology who are authors of the UNDP report?
She characterizes them as people that want to gain control over the biodiversity and use the 3rd world’s status as a way to validate it.
4. According to Mittal what is the role of corporations play in the promotion of biotechnology? How does the claim her characterization of the motives for promoting such technology?
She says that they are promoting it as a way to gain control of the biodiversity and their seed to put a potential stronghold on their food supply.
5. How effective is the colloquial language used in the two sentence concluding paragraph? Are there other examples on the essay?
It tells me that she is passionate about this topic and that we should not be persuaded to follow the same path that the UNDP. No I did not se any other use any other use of colloquial language
Jennifer Ruiz Hernandez
Prof. Sharon Diaz
English 3103, sec: 095
1. Mittal gives us the fundamental information we need to understand what she wants to say. In her firs paragraph she tells us that the UNPD is trying to persuade the world in favor of genetically engineered food. They released a report proposing to the rich countries to leave the fear aside and start consuming and promoting the potential of biotechnology. They tell us that the genetically engineered food is a solution for world hunger. But in the body of the essay Mittal explains to us that the fact that the world isn’t producing enough food is not the problem at all.
2. Mittal gives us as an example her country, India, to explain to us the real problem and her argument on her essay. In India there are farmers that have committed suicide because they had tons of unsold food and that had led them to poverty. Their problem is not that they don’t have enough food, they produce enough food; they just don’t have the money to buy it. With this example Mittal gives us the real problem of world poverty with this strong fact which supports in a great way her argument.
3. She characterizes them as “trained technocrats, seduce by technological fixes”.
4. The corporations that promote this kind of food are only focused in their own good. They are trying to persuade us to buy their products by telling us that there is a solution to world hunger, but the truth is that they’re just a menace, not only to world hunger but to our nature too. Genetically engineered food is more expensive and by being more expensive less people can buy it and less people can eat each year. These corporations are trying to manipulate us to buy something that, instead of helping humanity will help to raise their own bank accounts.
5. The final two sentences are very effective because they resume big part of the essay. We don’t have to follow the direction the UNPD wants us to follow, and she puts it very clearly. Like she said; if the UNPD is snookering about genetically engineered food, we don’t, because we know that if they’re prying around it must be for some reason. She also uses colloquial language in her first two sentences.
Post a Comment