Critical thinking: countering arguments
When we read persuasive writing, such as an opinion essay, it's important to reflect on possible weaknesses in the writers supporting arguments.
This is a useful skill to apply to our own persuasive writing. When we are planning, writing and reviewing our own persuasive writing, it helps to also think critically about how readers who disagree with our thesis might counter our own supporting arguments, and how we can address those counterarguments.
Critical thinking: exercise E
The somewhat revised questions 1 and 2.
Time: 16 minutes
I suggest you divide your time roughly as:
- planning = 3:00 minutes (we've already brainstormed some ideas)
- writing = 10:00 minutes
- editing = 3:00 minutes
Citing the reading
The question asks you to respond to the supporting arguments in the reading, so you will need to cite those arguments. This should be mainly paraphrase that integrates smoothly into your own sentences, but if you like, you can also quote a few exact words from the source you are responding to. For example:
In paragraph 2 the writer argues that ... .
Reference
Warwick, L. & Rogers, L. (2018). Skillful 4: Reading & Writing, Student's Book Pack (2nd. ed.). London: Macmillan Education
The author of "Benefits of Urbanization" presents strong arguments in favour of urbanization. My own personal experience prompts me to agree, but although I am sure that the benefits of urbanization outweigh the problems, it's important to address counterarguments, to counter the possible counter arguments that people who disagree with us might have.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the author argues that urbanization is good for productivity. However, it could be argued that the productivity that comes with urbanization is very unfairly distributed, which is why we commonly see slum areas in cities, such as in Cairo in Egypt. The same is true of Bangkok, which has many slum areas among the highly productive economy that urbanization has led to in Bangkok. But this is not in fact a reason to oppose urbanization. There might be slum areas in cities like Cairo and Bangkok, but as we learned in the case of Cairo, the people in those slums have gone there because they think it's a better life than available on the even more impoverished rural areas they came from. Also, even if wealth is very unevenly distributed, that does not mean that everyone is not becoming more wealthy as the productivity increases, only that the rich are getting richer even as the poor also get richer.
When it comes to environmental effects, my own experience living in Bangkok is that pollution is much worse than in rural areas. The same also used to be true of Sydney, Australia. When I went to study there from my home on a farm in the country, the pollution was terrible. But note the tenses: they are past. Sydney today is much better than it used to be, although Bangkok is an even better example of how pollution in a large city can in fact be improved. WHen I first visited Bangkok some 30 plus years ago, the pollution from old cars and buses was much worse than it is today. It is the innovation that comes with urbanizaiton that has enabled the great progress over the past three decades. However, even if pollution had not improved in the city, that would not be a sufficient reason to think that urbanization was not good for the environment of the entire country. As the author explains, concentrating people in an urban areas greatly reduces the overall amount of pollution from energy use, especially carbon emissions that are so harmful to the whole planet.
I disagree with the author stating that the environment could be benefited by urbanization, although some examples which seen logical are given but I am not convinced to them. Even if use of heating electricity will reduce to higher temperature in urban areas than rural areas, many will use air conditioner in order to cool their rooms instead. Bangkok, for example, where air conditioners are wildly used in most buildings and households. Therefore, I would say the given example on this essay is only reasonable in some circumstances.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do support the idea of urbanization for the greater good as it increase productivity and innovation in our society which are going to be beneficial for development of countries.
When I read Good's comment, I immediately wondered why I had not thought of that. The author of the article seems to be describing cities in cool or cold climates, but in Bangkok, I run air conditioning for most of the day, and that uses a lot of energy. In fact, I would guess it's easier to take advantage of cooling breezes in rural areas.
DeleteBut for people like myself who favour city living, it might be argued that even in warm climates such as that of Bangkok, the net energy use in urban areas is still less than in rural areas, where a lot more energy must be used for transportation, which is likely to greatly outweigh any benefit that a rural area might enjoy for cooling or heating.
I agree with you about your opinion in the benefit of urbanization to environment. This cannot be logical to every countries on earth. It depends on its level of development and its climate. I had chance to stay in the developed country,Sweden. This experience made me convince with the author’s idea that enviroment is derived benefits from urbanization due to transportation. The most common way of transportation in Stockholm is bicycle. I think that this happen because of the well city plan, providing private bike lanes and traffic lights for bike all parts of city, and a good education systems leading citizens’ awareness of their behaviors impact on enviroment.
DeleteFor me, I disagree with the author that urbanization brings the advantage to the developing country.
ReplyDeleteThe writer states that the urbanization made less environmental effects than the rural area and can increased productivity and also innovations.
As I think along and compare to Bangkok which I lived, Bangkok does not match the reasons.
I feel that space in Bangkok is very small and the environmental around and pollution does not encouraged me to do anything.
Also in Bangkok, we built many infrastructure for transportations and cut down the trees. If you walk along the street, you will feel the heat from the concrete road.
That are the reason why I do not agree with the author.
Thank you Sea. How do you think the author of the essay might reply to your counterarguments here?
DeleteIt is a huge problem in terms of the environment in Bangkok. I also think climate change which might be a result from urbanisation plays a huge role in the thermal issue. Fortunately, I personally think that there are many simple solution to deal with this such as using public transport instead of private vehicle.
DeleteIn different points of view, Bangkok might not be a good example for urbanization. Bangkok is a still developing city. There are a lot of things to improve and also many problems to solve. In the future, there might be new projects coming up, like new park in the city or roadside tree planting, which are more environment friendly and provide good space for people.
DeleteAbout the public transportation that Good said, I agree that it is a very easy way to solve the problem especially the traffic and pollution. I heard that they plan to build many routes to go around Bangkok but still haven't finished all of it yet. So I think it might be better in the future for Bangkok to say that there are benefits from urbanization.
I still agree with author that urbanization derives benefits on environment , but only in the developed countries, not developing. Bangkok is still developing city. It requires education to be more available to every social class and better public transportation. If people are well educated enough, they will be aware of their behaviors which impact their environment. So the rate of overconsumption will significantly declines. Besides that idea, if our country develop its public transportations that that provide more safety, convinient and time-saving options or have more reasonable price, the rate of using private cars should shrinks dramatically. But to make these two ideas becomes possible, our city should need more development first which still require urbanization. That is why I still agree with the authors idea of benefits of urbanization.
DeleteIn the second paragraph, they state that urbanization increases productivity. In my opinion, urbanization will increase output, but labor might have a bad effect on this because new technologies, like AI and auto machines, will replace human labor. Then, a lot of people will lose their jobs.
ReplyDeleteAnother idea that is mentioned in the text is that urbanization might have a good effect on the environment. It might be true if the government had a long term plan to prepare for more waste and more pollution. If it wasn't, the effect would be the opposite.
I had not thought of Phum's suggestion that innovation in the direction of AI and automation might have negative consequences for employment, but it's a good idea. It reminds me of what has happened in the US and other nations as a result of technology changing how things are produced. Combined with globalization, it led to great changes in employment, although the worst affected seem to be rural areas and the towns in them. A lot of manufacturing used to happen in such areas, but those factories closed when automation made it more profitable to manufacture goods either in larger industrial sites nearer cities or to shift production overseas.
DeleteIn Australia, it is easier to get employment in cities than in countries because the innovation creates new industries that employ people to do new jobs, but that does not happen in country areas, so perhaps AI actually makes urbanization the better choice after all.
I think it is right that AI reasonably makes urbanization better. This rapid changing technology might affect in a short period of time the blue collar. It forces labor to upskill no matter what, because industry doesn't want only human labor, but they want labor with machine skills, like preparing, maintaining, and operating equipment, etc.
DeleteAnyway, to prepare for the new era, the fundamental education and development skills of workers should be mainly considered by the government.
Yes, it appears that advanced technologies such as robot seem to steal many job positions from humans especially blue collar workers. I couldn't imagine what job will be available for mankind in the next century.
DeleteAs urbanization continues to grow, the environment thrives as a result of public transportation and innovations from entrepreneurs, according to the author. I disagree with the author’s ideas of the environment in urbanization. To make urbanization possible space needs to be cleared to build buildings, schools, and other facilities. This causes damage to forests or any kind of environmental space which are in the way of building cities. The spaces which the cities are building on are the habitats to many diverse populations. This causes extinctions of many species, climate change, and displacement of populations. Improper care of waste from cities is also a problem of which urbanization causes to the environment. Another point I disagree with the author is that innovation which help the environment or the system of the city increases as urbanization happens. Innovation may be beneficial; however, the ethics of the company or entrepreneur who made the innovations are questionable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion toward environmental negative effects. Deforestation is the main issues that happens all over the place around the world that turn the forest land to a city. Not many country that have well plan during urbanization. Bangkok, for example. We do not have a long term of city plan when we form the town since beginning. Today, citizens still struggle with flood in many area even it is only light rain. Big tunnel were builded to drain water out of the road in raining season. However, the city does not have a proper waste disposal management, so many waste are blocked the stem to drain water out. As a result, the problem won't be solved since another problems round back in the circle.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe essay points out that the environment surprisingly receives benefits from urbanization because urban style tends to be less harmful to the environment which is the opposite of my opinion.
I don't think that living in cities is surely more environmentally friendly. The writer mentions that Buildings in the cities consume less electricity for heating. What about building in a tropical zone? Can the writer statement apply to different contexts? In Thailand, which has a scorching temperature, nearly all buildings in Bangkok have use AC most of the day while houses in rural areas can handle high temperatures without AC. Moreover, the city lifestyle might result in a lot of single-using plastic. In recent years, food delivery gains a lot of popularity in most cities of the world, leading to a huge amount of trash from food packages so it's hard to say that it's environmentally friendly.
Thank you Phing to share a good point about using AC in the city. I totally agree with that and I also question how the building will consume less electricity. If we count that there are one hundred family in the building, and each dwellers use AC in their own room. How would it be less consuming in this sense?
DeleteChester(2010) The impact on environment is one of the benefits of urbanization by the means of transportation.Although I do agree with some parts of this statement, I still find many contrasts. I think this idea work only for the already developed countries, not the one trying to develop. As I always live in Bangkok where is the capital of thailand, developing country, I find the effects of urbanization lead more negative impacts than positive impacts to the environment. From 1997 to 2021, the city has been developed so far by the process of urbanization. There more high buildings, ways of transportation and technology innovation compared to last 15 years. I find this makes a lot of impact on enviroment. There are more leftovers left on the streets as more people come to stay in this small city because it is the central of economics. Another reason is that when the urbanized city come with overload population but the public transportation of the city is not well enough. This make the citizens still use ther cars as a way of transport. More pollution is provided to the air. More trees and natural are removed in order to make a habitants for overpopulation.
ReplyDeleteI have a chance to stay in Sweden,developed country, for 2 weeks for vacation. The first city I visit is Stockholm. In contrast, the ways of transportation is totally different from that in Bangkok. The most popular way for transportation of the citizens is surprisingly a bicycle. This because the well-organized road has an extra lanes for bike which connects the whole city. There are specific traffic lights for bike making it runs separately with other vehicles so the riders are completely safe. As a reult from a great city planning,the important places such as governmental offices, hospitals and schools are located so proximally that everyone can enjoys their daily rountine by using only a bicycle. In addition to bicycle, the public transportation of Stockholm is extremely useful from subway to tram. It covers every kilometers of the city. They more modern and safe when compare with those from Bangokok.Their innovation helps the citizens to save the time a lot due to its speed. This also come with reasonable price that every social class of the citizen can afford. The ways of transportation in this city make their environment very well conserved. Rrom thistwo different experiences, I think that urbanization still has benefits to environment depending on how well the city be developed.This is only author’s idea which I have an arguments. I still totally agree that urbanization has positive effects on both increaing productivity and developing innovations. This make me thinks the postive of urbanizations outweght the negative,
DeleteIn paragraph 2, the writer argues that urbanization has serval great benefits, as it supports productivity of cities by increasing economies of scale and connecting transportation. However, I think that serval issues such as overpopulation in those cities and the higher costs of living due to expensive costs of transportation.
ReplyDeleteIn paragraph 3, the writers points out that urbanization can help improving the environment because people can live in more eco-friendly habitants. However, I think the writer forgets to consider about the issue that some animals can lost their homes as people invade their areas.
I think invading forests is one issue that should be concerned. Urbanization is quite related to the expansion of the city. The more developed, the more immigration, which also leads to more housing needs. The condominium might be desirable for some young people and could solve the forest invasion a little bit. However, there are always some people who prefer houses with gardens or space around the house for doing some outdoor activities. In the future, new innovation ideas and technology could help us live in a green environment, I hope.
DeleteAccording to "The benefits of urbanization", the author gave us three significant benefits of urbanization as follow: the higher rate of productivity with low costs, the less consuming energy and environment, the positive development of new innovations. However, these positive side can be disastrous problems as well.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, as economic scale are expand there will create equality in the society. Although there are a lot of product produced with a low cost, it does not mean that every one could support it. For example, the H&M cloth brand that create unfair paid rate for their worker while they sell their product around the world.
Another intrigue drawback is that environment are exploited by pollutions in many ways. For instant, air, water, soil, and also noise.
The most important effect is that there are limited people who can access to an innovation. Poverty rate are high up in the rural area since the new technology are stuck in town. The hub of workplace will be center at the city. It could create overcrowded in the city.
In my opinion urbanization is served us negative effects rather benefites.
I could not agree more that urbanization causes negative correlation between productivity and the cost of it, and your idea of innovations not being available to everyone. Fast Fashion brands like H&M as you mentioned, use unfair labor. Their source of clothes, mostly from Asian countries, are made by people who get extremely low-pay while working for long-hours in dangerous conditions.
DeleteHi Phum, thank you for sharing your ideas. As I haven't finished my comments above. I would like to share my opinion that although I realized that urbanization can lead to some issues, I still support it. I think the benefits can outweigh the drawbacks. First of all, urbanization can improve the economic which is in line with the writers. By transforming rural areas into urban areas, the city can attract investments from business companies, both domestic and international companies, resulting in more new types of job that allow people to get higher incomes. For example, many years ago Bangkok used to be just the place for commerce, selling and buying, However, since the city has transformed into the hub of educations, healthcare, entertainment and tourism, it has created new high-paid jobs for local people.
ReplyDeleteAnother benefit is that urbanization can increase standards of living, because it brings about innovation, as mentioned by the writer, that improves transportation, infrastructures and healthcare. For example, because of the improvements in roads, traffic systems and vehicles, it is possible for hospitals to better deal with patients in emergency such as car accident and accidents.