The new order of old things.

Summary 

According to Stephen Kelly in "From Sonic the Hedgehog to Star Wars, are fans too entitled?" (2020), after getting negative fan feedbacks, accepting audience wishes and redesigning Sonic the hedgehog character by Jeff Fowler, an American filmmaker, is an obvious sign of fandom's power. The realist appearance of this character was edited to more cartoonish which is similar to the old version in the fan childhood memory. Because of the social media platform, fandoms have abandon spaces to share their opinions which are amplified and effected some directions of movies such as Star Wars and Game of Thorne. Although this phenomenon leads to the participation of the movie fans to shape pop cultures, it also causes new challenges and restrictions for recent filmmakers especially adding diversity concepts.

____________________________________ 

Response 

    Nowadays, strong fandom power results in changing the movie industry with social media platform reinforcing. Not only this power can command the design of the character, but it is also able to ignite rebooting movies which fan do not appreciate, leading to the controversy. Although the participation of everyone to shape pop-culture sounds delightful, if we explore at the derivation of the power of fandom in detail, we will find out lots of battling against contemporary concepts and lacking respect artists and creators.
    Certain mass media companies have not produced only TV series or movies. They've created the entertainment empires which consist of theme parks, games, resort, streaming media, selling toys, and shopping. One character or movie inspires and is applied to lots of products and services. For example, Jurassic Park, a well-known movie from 1993, appears in the form of one zone in theme parks, playthings, and the inauguration of the franchise movies. The huge conglomerates such as Disney and Universal Pictures use this strategy to generate large amounts of income. Despite being a brilliant plan, it's also a double-edged sword that is stabbing the creative industry; hence, fan backlash on just one movie can damage other involved business sectors, likes a domino effect. Awareness of this kind of backlash obstructs the movie studio to experiment with new things and goes round in circles of cliches plots.
    Some many directors and artists attempted to create content that empowers women and increases diversity in media. However, lots of fans were dissatisfied with those contemporary concepts especially in the franchise movies, long-established TV series, and remake movies. Because they usually refer things that exact or similar to childhood versions even though it was composed a long time ago, before our society-mindset improvement. For instance, in the past, the majority proportion of outstanding roles in media were reserved for white straight men.
    Many fans dedicate time and attention to their favorites therefore they tend to have an intense sense of ownership which might cause some disrespect to creators. For instance, despite being an intention of JK rowling to give a Hermione role to African American actress in the stage play version, fans against this decision. Moreover, I believe that filmmakers can not carry all of the fans' opinions while they are doing their jobs. Under the business strategy of the media company, creative workers already have had many restrictions.
    To conclude, the economic aim might support entitling to fandoms more than creators meanwhile most fans do not accept new emerging ideas, resulting in a challenge for artists and directors.
I believe that everybody has the right to share personal opinions and strong fandom power can force better quality of media as long as fandoms use internet platforms for creative expressions such as writing fan fiction, fan art drawing, and film criticism with an open mind.  Film criticism in an aggressive mood should be avoided.
 

____________________________________ 

Question

What is the acceptable limit of fandom power? or it should be free?

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Kelly, S (2020, February 14). From Sonic the Hedgehog to Star Wars, are fans too entitled?. BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20200213-from-sonic-the-hedgehog-to-star-wars-are-fans-too-entitled

Don't put your head on the wrong shoulder.

Summary 

According to Jonathan Jones in “Don’t lose your head over Hirst” (2013), he argues the censorship of archaeology department of Leicester University on ‘With Dead Head’ (1991), a black and white photograph of Damien Hirst, a British famous controversial artist, due to having no the rights or authority of scientific academics over artists, which they claimed that Hirst’s taking a humorous photo with the head of a corpse and present it on the public at the New Art Gallery Walsall in the Artist Rooms collection is no concerning with postmortem ethics and archaeological ethics, in terms of exposing a dead person’s identity and devoting body for scientific purpose, and also supports this work of art that is created from artistic honesty to provoking people’s consciousness of death, especially when we are looking at specimens.

____________________________________ 

Response 

Figure 1, Damien Hirst, With Dead Head, Photograph, 1991(Manchester, 2019).

Although the ‘With Dead Head’ (1991) seems without postmortem ethics or empathy to the dead person as scientists do and artistic talent, they are not the main point of Jonathan Joes, who wrote the “Don’t lose your head over Hirst” (2013) on the Guardian. This work of art by Damien Hirst was censored by archaeologists from the archaeology department of Leicester University. Others, including the writer, disagreed with scientists’ reaction. This censorship is not the right of scientists and fair judgement. 

Figure 2, The Plastination of Dr. Gunther von Hagens (Charles David, 2017).

Scientists have no right to ban any artworks by claiming their postmortem ethics. Due to a scientist is not a person who works in the field of arts, as widely accepted that a scientist is a person who conducts scientific research and explores scientific knowledge in the area of interest. Moreover, using authority such as censorship, of course, is not accepted in democratic societies. In Hirst’s case, this controversy reminds to Dr. Gunther von Hagens’s multidisciplinary artworks^[1], an anatomist exhibited the ‘Body Worlds’, an exhibition of dissected human bodies, animals and other organisms. While Hirst’ artwork was blamed that it has no postmortem ethics and does not a scientific purpose, Hagens has right to present corpses with eccentric anatomical poses due to whether educational purposes and getting permission to presenting the identity of dead persons from them or their relatives, which is announced in his exhibitions. Therefore, if Hirst had done the same things as Hagens, he would whether have not prohibited by scientists’ perspective.

The censorship on Hirst’s artwork is an unfair judgement. The reaction of those archaeologists with the artwork is a superficial consideration, which is a judgement based on only his acting. According to Hirst’s humorous pose with the dead head, academics claimed that such an unethical behaviour, lacking empathy, philanthropy and respect with the cadaver. Sixteen Hirst took a black-white photograph with his smiling face on the dead head by his friend. His concept is to differentiate death and life in realities and provoke people’s awareness of death even just being specimens (Jones, 2013, paragraph 19). Most of his con artworks (BBC, 2012) usually arose controversial issues in societies. In fact, many artists who play with death in various ways but their artworks are not censored. 

Figure 3, Araya Rasdjarmrearnsook, The Class, 2005 (Kangsadarn Suksomstarn, 2012).

Hirst’s artwork is similar to Araya Rasdjarmrearnsook that the using human body as media to express their idea but her artwork did not ban on her corpse fetish. In contrast, she received wide acceptance from viewers. Araya’s video installation namely ‘The Class’ (2005), exhibited in Venice Biennale, presents teaching and asking real corpses, presenting as her students, for the response. She aims to recall her loved ones who lost their life. The artwork also argues doctors and scientists who only have the right to use the human body for scientific study. How does this differ from the artist do with her idea or artistic purposes that may change the view and response to death? - Araya said (Suksomstarn, 2012, paragraph 48). In the video installation, viewers touch her respect to death from her serious acting. She also directly presents no corpses’ identity. She usually embraces tragedy and expresses it through her artworks. Furthermore, she is obsessed with death which is her inspiration. These factors may be reasons to save the artwork from censoring. However, those archeologists did not know the fact that Hirst was very depressed with someone’s death.

In conclusion, there is widespread controversy on the ‘With Dead Head’ (1991) of Damien Hirst. The main point is that scientists have no right to censor even if it represents unethical behaviour. Furthermore, the censorship is not a democratic action and not unprejudiced judgement. People in societies should ask the integrity of justice and ethics to scientists who use human bodies with their own purposes in return. Both professionals and individuals should not use emotion to judge someone, as Jones says, “Don’t lose your head over Hirst”.

---

^[1]Some western art academics accept the Plastination of Hargens as multidisciplinary art.  

____________________________________ 

Question

The artwork of Hirst was censored by those archaeologists with reasons that his artwork has no postmortem ethics and used the human body in the wrong purposes, which is actually not the scientists' right to do such authority, however, if this society requires to ban it because it reflects Hirst's unethical behaviour, could consensus building resolve this controversy in terms of prohibiting exhibiting the artwork? 

____________________________________ 

Reference

• BBC News. (2012, March 27). Julian Spading attacks Damien Hirst ‘con art’. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-17523671
• Body Worlds. (n.d.). Exhibition. Body Worlds. https://bodyworlds.com/exhibitions/human/
• Davis, Charles. (2017, September 16). You Can See Dead People Having Sex for Less Than $20. But, Should You?. Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/you-can- see-dead-people-having-sex-for-less-than-dollar20-but-should-you
• Johnes, Jonathan. (2013, July 17). Don’t lose your head over Hirst. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jul/17/damien-hirst-photograph-severed-head-censorship
• Kangsadarn Suksomstarn, Kangsadarn. (2012, Mar 30). Teaching the dead. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/arts-and-entertainment/286717/teaching-the-dead
• Manchester, Elizabeth. (2009, October). Damien Hirst with Dead Head. Tate. https://www. tate.org.uk/art/artworks/hirst-with-dead-head-ar00617

We are family

Summary 

According to "Why my own father would have let IS kill me" (2015), Being gay in Muslim society is against the religious, Taim (24)  had shared his past experience living as gay guys in Iraq. During his college, he decided to meet a therapist who helped him from suffering from his own ascribe trait. He circled with supporting Christian friends however, this trait was been fatal problems under a religious belief. One of his Islamic friend who joined IS, hunting him down when he found out the secrete. The friend asked Taim's father, a religious man, to take his son for a death penalty. Later, Taim knew that the father also preferred him to die if the friend would have stated the truth. Finally, his mom successfully saved his life yet his heart has been devastated by his own father.                   

____________________________________ 

Response 

In many countries, we always hear the phrase 'Unconditional love' and 'Love is blind', the two phrases are related to our belief and bias. However, the phrase as such 'Human being is equal' or 'Human being born free' both cope with beliefs. After we are born norms, culture or religion come later to from behaviors and mindsets. Focusing on discrimination, for instance, race, sex, gender, age, religion, or disability all are heated topics that people fight each other around the world. 

Taim would have died if his mom hadn't successfully saved him from IS and his father, therefore, as a daughter yet a parent, how could a strong religious belief blind father's love toward his own child on his gender? Gender is one of ascribing traits that everyone born with and we have the right to be as we want to be if it doesn't harm others, only bias frames our thought and discriminates against others. You are unable to label or judge others from their gender. For example, ordinary typical thinking is women weaker than men, but there are many female athletes who are stronger than normal men. Her strong physical strength builds up because of her practices, there are cause and effect that shape her physical power. As same with Taim's story, the father's decision was no fair reason base and his act is hurting his own son while he is being alive.                 

In Thai culture, we have some common bias is the idea of judging people from gender, we believe sons are more precious than daughters, we have a phrase that having a daughter is like having a toilet in front of your house, it means that being a girl in the family, you only bring bad reputations and a lot of problems to the family. Such as if you have a good husband and successful married life your family won't bother you but if you have not had a happy married life they might blame you as the person who brings bad reputation to the whole family, in addition, the belief creates conflict and problems in family relationships. Luckily, my parent does not have that kind of thought. In Chinese families also prefer a boy more than a girl in which a girl is treated differently. Many kids have been suffered from parents' unfair love. 

Culture, norm, or religion are tools to control human behaviors: some are legal, some are illegal, some are not reasonable or make sense, so should we still follow those beliefs or rules? What if our acts are not illegal but have a contradiction with religion, so do we have the right to criticize if it against human rights? What should we do? Should we act against the belief? Do we have the right to protect ourselves from the unfair judge? It may have had many different answers to answer in each situation. As Taim's father act in my opinion he had a brutally decision many people in different cultures may be also agreed with me. Since there are not right for any person to allow others to kill another, it's a part of crimes. The sentence fits with human rights rules and again even if the dog would not kill its babies how the father could do that to his own son even it against religion!                                         

____________________________________ 

Question

In Thai culture, we have a strong senior system in many places like in workplaces, schools, or in the family, what junior can do if the senior is totally make a wrong move? 

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Why my own father would have let IS kill me (2015, July 23) BBC magazine. bbc.com/news/magazine-33565055

As good as duck and abortion

Summary 

Click them to see images full size.

According to "Shenzhen becomes first Chinese city to ban eating cats and dogs" (2020), following an earlier ban on eating wild animals, which some believe to have been the source of the coronavirus that has infected more than 80 thousand people in China, animal rights groups have praised the recent decision by Shenzhen city to criminalize eating dog and cat meat, although the groups would have preferred that China had also banned the use of bear bile for coronavirus treatment. In supporting the change to the law, Shenzhen's government argued that evolving social beliefs that perceive pets as having closer social bonds to humans means that the millions of dogs and cats normally eaten every year in China should now be treated as they generally are in developed nations, which do not allow them to be eaten.

(version 4 = 137 words — safely within the 140 word limit.)

____________________________________ 

Response 

family and pets at my brother's home
a couple of years ago

Although my family has always had dogs, both as work animals and as pets, I think China has made a mistake in banning a traditional practice for the reason given. I have no desire to eat dog, although I have tried it a couple of times when travelling in the north of Thailand. The first time was entirely accidental. My brother and I were in a small town in Chiangrai, and when we went to to a restaurant for a meal, the duck was recommended. We raised ducks at our home in Australia, and often eat it; when the dish we had ordered arrived, it was very clearly not duck. Further investigation clarified that we were eating dog: the consequence of  a pronunciation problem when I did not speak Thai. We continued with our meal, but certainly would not have ordered it had we understood what was being offered. More recently, one of my Thai friend's mother insists on cooking up a special meal of dog meat when I visit his home in Chiangrai. I wish she wouldn't, but I politely eat a little.  I would much prefer duck. 

So cute — ducklings at
my family's home
in Australia

I think China has made a common, and popular, mistake in arguing that if something is socially accepted, that makes it ethical. It is true that it is accepted as ethical, but I think an important ethical principle is that not only people but also entire societies can be and often are wrong about what is and is not ethical. It would be very easy if right and wrong could be determined by a simple majority vote, but that seems definitely wrong to me. Until about 150 years ago, slavery was widely accepted by society everywhere. It had always been morally wrong, but people had not realised that. Similarly, until very recently, same-sex marriage was a serious criminal offence in most countries, and those laws were always unethical, even though popular and supported by most religions. If it were true that being a majority opinion of society made a practice or believe morally right, then every social reformer would be morally bad. For example, the people who campaigned to end slavery, the people who campaigned for same-sex marriage, the women who campaigned for equal rights for their sex, and so on, were all minorities, often hated minorities at the start, but I do not think that made them wrong. It was society that was unethical, not the minority groups. The minority opinion was the right one. Similarly, when society imprisons people for selling or using drugs like yaa baa, heroin and marijuana while the people who sell and use the far more harmful drug alcohol are free and rewarded with fortunes, then society is morally wrong, however large a majority approves the unjust laws. Radicals who protest to change are not unethical because they disagree with socially accepted traditions. 

So, what about the ethics of eating dog meat? Is that right or wrong? I want to make another general point about ethics: it has to be logically consistent. That is, we need reasons to treat things differently. As the example with alcohol and other drugs shows, there is no good reason that justifies the very different treatment legal treatment of the sale and use of yaa baa and the sale and use of alcohol. That inconsistency means the law is unjust: either people who like champagne and the executives of Singha Beer should be in prison, or yaa baa users and dealers should not be in prison. 

Delicious dinners
at my brother's home

In the case of dog and duck, I can think of no morally relevant reason to treat eating them differently. Some people keep ducks as pets. My family treated some of our ducks more as pets than others. I remember once that one of my sisters was very upset and refused to eat when a naughty brother told her that we were eating Limpy, a favourite of hers. I think my sister's emotional reaction was natural and understandable, but I don't think that emotional reaction was a reliable guide to moral right or wrong. And the Chinese argument is similar to the popular misunderstanding that ethics is nothing more than a personal or social emotional response to something, so when people in Germany hated Jews, they thought it was good to kill them, and when people in various countries hated communists or atheists, or other religions, they thought it was good to kill them. All awful arguments supporting bad ethics. 

Some of our family pets

But it goes further. In my opinion, what makes it wrong to kill is that  you kill a living being that is also a person. This is why society rightly judges murder to be wrong. But a duck is not a person, so it is ethical to kill and eat duck. Similarly, a dog is also not a person, so whatever emotional attachment we might have to dogs, and my family has always had strong attachments to our dogs, it is not normally unethical to kill them for food as is traditional in some cultures. But this argument has another logical consequence: the pigs we like to turn into tasty ham and bacon are as much persons as is a human foetus in the mother's womb. Neither pigs nor unborn humans are self aware, neither pigs nor unborn humans have preferences or goals, or any other characteristic of a person than a duck or a cow. Logically, therefore, abortion cannot be unethical, which means that laws against abortion must be unjust. 
 

____________________________________ 

Question

Do the arguments that allow us to enjoy eating duck, pork and beef also logically mean that it should be legal to eat dog meat and that abortion must be legal at any stage in a pregnancy? 

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Shenzhen becomes first Chinese city to ban eating cats and dogs. (2020, April 2). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52131940 

Skillful 3: Reading and Writing, page 138 - Critical thinking

What is it? 

In their critical thinking exercise that concludes the reading "It's Legal, But Is It Ethical", Rogers and Zemach invite us to discuss three questions that follow up ideas in the reading we have now read carefully, (2018). The three questions all invite us to apply the ideas in the reading to our own experience, or to give our own opinions on related issues.

____________________________________ 

Response 

As we have just done before, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's questions here in blog comments, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas
 

____________________________________ 

Questions

After thinking about them for few minutes, write down your response to Rogers and Zemach's  questions in a comment below. You probably want to write two or three paragraphs.  

• Should all unethical behaviour be illegal? (Examples will probably be useful here.)
   
• Is it OK to do unethical things as long as they are not illegal? (For example?)
   
• Who is responsible for judging unethical behaviour? 

On page 138, Rogers and Zemach suggest some useful language to start, but I suggest you not use the "Yes" and "No" in their suggestions. That would be appropriate in an oral discussion, but it's not a good choice here. The other language might be more useful and appropriate. 

____________________________________ 

You have 15:00 minutes to plan and write a response to the three questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as:

• planning = 3:00 minutes
• writing = 10:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 2:00 minutes.

Remember, your writing should make sense independently of the question it might be answering, so it would be useful to give background, which can often be done by paraphrasing the question into statements that begin your answer.  

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education 

Skillful 3: Reading and Writing, page 135 - After you watch

What is it? 

In their concluding exercise to the introduction on page 135, Rogers and Zemach invite us to discuss three questions that follow up ideas in the video we have just watched, (2018). The three questions all invite us to apply the ideas in the video to our own experience, or to give our own opinions on related issues.

____________________________________ 

Response 

As we have just done before, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's questions here in blog comments, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas
 

____________________________________ 

Questions

After thinking about them for few minutes, write down your response to Rogers and Zemach's  questions in a comment below. You probably want to write two or three paragraphs. 

• Do you think such a law would work in your country?
   
• What would the off off hours in your country be?
   
• What other laws could you introduce to protect the work-life balance? 

_________________________________ 

You have 15:00 minutes to plan and write a response to the three questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as:

• planning = 3:00 minutes
• writing = 10:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 2:00 minutes.

Remember, your writing should make sense independently of the question it might be answering, so it would be useful to give background, which can often be done by paraphrasing the question into statements that begin your answer.  

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education 

Skillful 3: Reading and Writing, page 134 - Discussion point 3

What is it? 

In their concluding question to the discussion of the infographic on page 134, Rogers and Zemach invite us to follow up their examples with our own opinion about a more general question that unit 8 will be exploring (2018).

____________________________________ 

Response 

As we have before, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's third discussion point question in blog comments, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas. 
 

____________________________________ 

Question

After thinking about it for a minute or two, write down your response to Rogers and Zemach's  question in a comment below. 

• In your opinion, whose responsibility is it to decide what is right and what is wrong? 

_________________________________ 

You have nine minutes to plan and write a response to the three questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as:

• planning = 2:00 minutes
• writing = 6:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 1:00 minutes.

Remember, your writing should make sense independently of the question it might be answering, so it would be useful to give background, which can often be done by paraphrasing the question into statements that begin your answer.  

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education 

Skillful 3: Reading and Writing, page 111 - Discussion questions

Summary 

Following our analysis of their model essay on page 111, Rogers and Zemach ask us to discuss three questions. We have already looked at the first of these: "Do you think [that] educating children about such things as hand washing is effective?" ((2018).

____________________________________ 

Response 

As we have just done before, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's following discussion questions in blog comments, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas.  
 

____________________________________ 

Questions

After thinking about them for a minute or two, write down your responses to Rogers and Zemach's  second and third questions that build on ideas in the model essay. I've extended the questions a little to encourage more critical thinking. 

• Do you think governments should spend money on programs educating people about disease? 
• Why are the opposing arguments unconvincing?    
• Who should be responsible for funding research into disease? 
• Why might some people disagree with your opinion? Why do you find their arguments unpersuasive

____________________________________ 

You have 15:00 minutes to plan and write a response to the three questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as: 

• planning = 3:00 minutes
• writing = 9:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 3:00 minutes.

Remember, your writing should make sense independently of the question it might be answering, so it would be useful to give background, which can usefully be done by paraphrasing the question into statements that begin your answer.  

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education 

Skillful 3: Reading and Writing, page 107 - Critical thinking on "The Economic Impact of Disease"

Summary 

In exercise E on page 107, Rogers and Zemach invite us to discuss two critical thinking questions that follow up ideas presented in "The Economic Impact of Disease" (2018).

____________________________________ 

Response 

As we have previously done, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's question in blog commnets, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas.  
 

____________________________________ 

Questions 1 & 2

After thinking about it for a few minutes, write down your response to Rogers and Zemach's critical thinking questions 1 and 2 on page 107 in a comment below. 

• Why do you think that people rarely talk about the economic effects of disease?
   
• Which of the six economic impacts described in the text do you think is the worst? Why? 
• I did not post it on Classroom earlier, but my one-sentence list of the six economic impacts, one topic for each body paragraph, is:
  
  The economic impacts that the reading discusses are: reduced production of goods and services (para. 2); increased health costs, which use up scarce resources (para. 3);  higher costs for social services (para. 4); reduction in tourism, especially when infectious disease causes panic (para. 5); lifestyle diseases (para. 6); and less tax and other resources to help those in need (para. 7). 

You have 15:00 minutes to plan and write a response to this first questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as: 

• planning = 3:00 minutes
• writing = 9:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 3:00 minutes.

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education 

Skillful 3: Reading and Writing, page 102 - Critical thinking on "Fighting Cholera"

Summary 

In exercise E on page 102, Rogers and Zemach invite us to discuss twocritical thinking questions that follow up ideas presented in "Fighting Cholera" (2018, p. 101).

____________________________________ 

Response 

As we have just done before, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's question in blog commnets, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas.  
 

____________________________________ 

Question 1 — 10:00 minutes + 

After thinking about it for a few minutes, write down your response to Rogers and Zemach's critical thinking question 1 on page 102 in a comment below. 

• Why do you think that lots of people did not believe John Snow? 

You have 10:00 minutes to plan and write a response to this first questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as: 

• planning = 2:00 minutes
• writing = 6:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 2:00 minutes.

____________________________________ 

Question 2 — 12:00 minutes + 

After thinking about it for a few minutes, write down your response to Rogers and Zemach's critical thinking question 2 on page 102 in a comment below. 

• Think about research you read every day, for example, the effects of a diet. Do you always believe the research? Why or why not?
  
  Or (12:00 minutes is not enough time to do both)
   
• What is another example you know of where a theory or claim (we looked at three types of claims in unit 5) was not at first accepted? Why wasn't it accepted? Has it been accepted today? 

You have 12:00 minutes to plan and write a response to this second question. I suggest you divide your time roughly as: 

• planning = 3:00 minutes
• writing = 6:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 3:00 minutes.

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education 

Skillful 3: Reading and Writing, page 99 - After you watch

Summary 

In their concluding exercise to the introduction on page 99, Rogers and Zemach invite us to discuss three questions that follow up ideas in the video we have just watched (2018, p. 99).

____________________________________ 

Response 

As we have just done before, we will discuss Rogers and Zemach's question in blog commnets, which is likely to generate a wider variety of ideas in addition to giving us a more permanent record of our ideas while also getting in some practice writing for fluency in a less academic style, but still writing our ideas in grammatically complete sentences that clearly state our ideas.  
 

____________________________________ 

Questions

After thinking about them for a minute or two, write down your responses to Rogers and Zemach's  questions after you watch the video in a comment below. 

• Which of these do you think is more dangerous, mosquitos, tigers or sharks?
   
• Do you know any ways to stop mosquitos from biting?
   
• What are the major causes of disease in your country? 
• What can be done to prevent them? 

____________________________________ 

You have 15:00 minutes to plan and write a response to the three questions. I suggest you divide your time roughly as: 

• planning = 3:00 minutes
• writing = 9:00 minutes, and 
• editing = 3:00 minutes.

Remember, your writing should make sense independently of the question it might be answering, so it would be useful to give background, which can often be done by paraphrasing the question into statements that begin your answer.  

____________________________________ 

Reference

• Rogers, L. & Zemach, D. E. (2018). Skillful 3: Reading & Writing (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education