Overview
The format for this paper will be the following
- First state your dilemma (attached in A3PS2 - Given the European Union’s recent ban on trimethylbenzoyl diphenylphosphine oxide (TPO), should the U.S. Food and Drug Administration require that gel nail polishes be reformulated to remove this chemical?)
- Next, give your professional audience in that field of expertise (attached in A3PS2 - FDA scientists and toxicologists who regulate and assess the safety of nail-care products.)
- This will be followed by your sources, with your (minimum) four scholarly sources first. (Attached in A3PS2 BUT IF YOU FIND BETTER SOURCES THAN THE ONES ATTACHED, INCLUDE NEW ONES!!! JUST HAVE AT LEAST 4 SCHOLARLY)
Each source should have ½ to 1 page devoted to it, broken down into three sections:
Details: (a) begin with the relevant details on your source (title, author, date published, where published, a shortened web address if on the internet etc.), (b) what the source is (journal article, magazine article, book, internet article), and (c) whether this is an scholarly source. Keep this to 3 lines or less.
Summary: Next, in a short paragraph, summarize/paraphrase the argument/substance of your source (only the parts that are relevant to your topic). Needless to say, no quotes -- use your own words. Note that you should not say how it applies to your topic. You may, however, quote one or two really significant phrases or terms if needed (e.g., as we will discuss in class, “bum-proof benches.”). It’s fine if your source is a heavily data-based research study or statistics etc.
Analysis of Source: Lastly, in another (somewhat longer) paragraph, analyze the points your source is making; only include points that are relevant for your dilemma. You do not need to mention both the strengths and weaknesses for each source-- we will discuss this further in class. Your focus should be on analyzing the source
You should point out at least two logical fallacies in any two of your sources (either in the same source or in two different sources). Please mark these in red.
- The rest of the format will remain the same as for your other papers, i.e. one inch margins, double spaced, 12 inch Times New Roman, page numbers top right, your info top left (single spaced, preferably – no big deal, though) etc.
- You do not need a bibliography for A3 as it is built into the assignment in section I.
- Do not use wider margins than the usual 1 inch on all sides, and as always do not have extra space between the paragraphs, but only between the sources.
- The total space per source should be between ½ a page to 1 page.
- Note that the length for Assignment 3 is 6 pages
- Begin A3 with “Assignment 3,” followed by “Dilemma” and “Professional Audience” (scroll down to see excerpted sample A3)
- Needless to say, your sources don't have to necessarily be on one 'side' of your dilemma or the other -- they could be either, or both...or neither! You should try and have sources that approach the issue from multiple angles.
- NO AI USE!! PLEASE ATTACH A TURN IT IN REPORT
- EXAMPLE OF ASSIGNMENT:
Assignment 3 Dilemma: Should the mass of plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean, known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, be eliminated via gasification?
Professional audience: Marine biologists
“Catalytic supercritical water gasification of plastics with supported RuO2: A potential solution to hydrocarbons-water pollution problem,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection: Volume 102 by Jude A. Onwudili and Paul T. Williams. 2016. Article. Scholarly source.
Onwudili and Williams show that using a catalyst like RuO2 can greatly enhance the gasification process, even more effectively than previously used catalysts like nickel-based chemicals. They argue that their methodology would lead to sustainable technology for waste removal and energy production. The syngas their study produced was methane-rich, with high potential for future energy storage.
Onwudili and Williams begin with a common feature of many papers advocating for solutions to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: emphasizing the immediacy of the problem at hand. This tactic is a double edged sword, sometimes effective, but often deceptive-seeming, like the authors don’t want the readers to look too closely at their solution, and instead want them to just be grateful there is a solution. Luckily, Onwudili and Williams back up their fear mongering with hard data, successfully optimizing the gasification process. The greatest asset of this paper is its ethos, as it is eminently clear that the authors are experts. However, many assertions in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, about the larger problem of garbage patches and gasification, are not fully justified. Further argumentation about gasification as a plastic waste solution method would make the importance of RuO2 as a catalyst far more clear to the reader, instead of the authors just jumping from a long introduction about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, into a specialized study about a catalyst, with nothing in between.
“Cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” Engineering and Technology by Christine Evans-Pughe. 2017. Article. Non-scholarly source.
This article describes a more popular solution for cleaning up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, soon to be employed by the The Ocean Cleanup. It argues that its cleanup array will be the best way to dispose of plastics because it utilizes the natural currents of the ocean. Plastic waste flows along these currents from gyres like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch to boats ready for plastic-pickup. Evans-Pughe argues that unlike gasification, this cleanup array has lots of public and monetary support, which ensures a quicker result, instead of the very specific ships that need to be built as outlined in the Panicker and Magid article. Countering arguments against pyrolysis, Evans-Pughe offers pyrolysis as a mechanism for producing a synthetic crude oil as opposed to gasification’s syngas.
The strongest points in this article are economic ones. The Ocean Cleanup’s funding and novel approach make the cleanup array a very attractive solution for environmentalists. The example of Plaxx, the synthetic crude oil, was a great argument for pyrolysis over gasification, countering gasification proponent’s claims. However, the arguments would probably not convince natural scientists, because the cleanup array only seems to account for plastic still floating on the surface of the water, not a very common feature of ocean garbage patches. Informed environmentalists would rightly be skeptical about the effectiveness of this method in real life, a skepticism backed up by its low success rate in gyres: 17%.