Effendi's draft is coherent to the question and does not beat around the bush. His essay is well-supported, with references to a few other articles. The essay started off well with a good introduction that is clear cut and answers the question and ends off with a short and consistent conclusion.
The first argument about "nature [having] the ability to save lives and sustain livelihood" is well organised with each idea in one paragraph. The argument is well presented with many ideas branching from the main argument. However some points are not supported by references and appears to be touch-and-go points without much elaboration (example, paragraph 4). The flow of the argument is smooth between paragraphs as they are clear cut and unconfusing.
The second argument about "nature’s ability to help human race in the future to fight climate change" had one idea which was well supported and elaborated. The transition within the paragraph is smooth. However a flaw about the second argument is that it only had one idea which is the maintaining of the ecosystem via replanting trees. Another idea brought up in the reading was about the potential learning opportunities we have from nature that can combat the climate change. This idea was not in Effendi's draft possibly due to the word limit.
Overall, I feel that Effendi's draft was a well-written essay, but some improvements can be done to the body paragraphs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
There are lot of things that i didnt not explain or elaborate due to the restriction of the word limit.I truly understand that my ideas are generalised and do not have enought evidence to support it. I will take note of the things you have mention and try to improve my essay. Thanks
ReplyDelete