2. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the criteria established. Where these good criteria, or should there have been different criteria established?
3. Reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the presentations as a whole. Consider the "yes" and "no" groups as a whole.
4. Reflect on the group management of your group. What went well, what did not?
5. Reflect on the personal "ethic" you felt in your group. Did you believe in your position? Where you arguing against your beliefs?
6. Did the class make the correct decision when considering the broader impacts of the global warming/climate change debate? Why?
7. Explain the statement, "What we do in the US, soon will not matter." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
8. Explain this statement, "What we do as individuals matters." Provide evidence to justify this statement.
In response to the questions above:
2. The criteria given for this evaluation were good criteria, but I felt like they could have been more in depth. They were a good basis on what to focus on for the evaluation and I believe they defined what goes into a legitimate paper. However, within these criteria if we had more specific information to dive into we could have argued our points better. I had a hard time understanding what we should have covered within those two criteria.
3. Some of the strengths of the “yes” groups were that they made good points in saying making inferences from the data presented make the paper credible because that is a good method of science. A couple of groups for the “yes” side did a good job with showing that some methods were not the greatest, but then said despite these weaknesses in the paper it is still a legitimate paper. Some weaknesses of the “yes” groups were that some of the information presented contradicted their own argument.
Some of the strengths the “no” groups had were they picked apart the paper well by showing specific graphs and showing it was wrong or misleading. However, by doing this they weakened their argument of the “no” perspective because then they didn’t talk about the written part of the paper, only the graphs.
4. Our group was well managed and worked nicely for presenting our perspective of the paper. It worked out well that everybody did research on the paper and the references within the paper, and we came together as a group and discussed that research, which then we used in our presentation. The only problem we had was finding an available time where everybody from our group could meet before we had to present.
5. For this project I felt that I was arguing against my beliefs. I didn’t really think the paper was legitimate, but our group presented that it was legitimate. However, I felt like there definitely are two different sides for this argument. I believe that there is an argument for the “yes” side so I argued this because it was assigned for my group. I wasn’t going to not help my group just because I didn’t necessarily believe in our argument. I made that argument anyways to help our group and complete the assignment.
6. Based off of presentations I think the class made the correct decision that the paper is not legitimate. They made the stronger argument in their presentations when compared to the “yes” groups. They gave more evidence to prove their point and their points seemed to outweigh the “yes” groups’ points. As far as if we made the right decision in terms of the paper actually being legitimate, I think it is still up in the air. There are a lot of references to research and methods to review before making a decision. And even if that decision is made, it could be an opinion if it is credible or not.
7. The statement “What we do in the US, soon will not matter” takes the viewpoint that what happens in the US, no other country really cares about. All kinds of countries are growing faster than ever in both population and economy. Due to this countries are focusing on what they themselves are doing, not what other countries are doing. They may follow a certain person from that country, but the other country as a whole they will not follow. They have been living in their own way for a long time and they aren’t going to change their ways because they are growing. It’s working well for them so why change? They have so many other things to think or worry about than what other countries are doing unless it is significant or threatens their own country.
8. The statement “What we do as individuals matters” refers to two different things to me. First, it means that individuals are what people care about. Individuals stick out from the group as a whole and that is what people pay attention to. For an individual to stand up for something or say things should be run makes a much larger statement than if a group did it. It’s seen in history where individuals have changed the life they live in. They change just that: history, along with the present and future. The other meaning I think this statement has is that what we do as ourselves matters, to ourselves. Everything we do as individuals matters to us because we wouldn’t do those things if it didn’t matter to us. Everybody is a little bit egotistical in the fact that they do what they want because it’s important to them. Whether it’s helping or doing things for others, ourselves or nobody, it’s all because it matters to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment