In this entry, we are required to state three common grammar mistakes that we make frequently. In the following paragraphs, I will be covering on 'independent and dependent clauses', ' subject/verb agreement' and 'preposition'.
An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb, expressing a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence. Whereas, a dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb, but does not express a complete thought. A dependent clause cannot be a sentence. There are two types of words which we can use as connectors at the beginning of an independent clause: coordinating conjunctions and independent marker words. There are seven coordinating conjunctions which we can use, namely; and ,but,for,or,nor,so,and yet. An independent marker word is a connecting word used at the beginning of an inde pendent clause. Below are some of the examples using coordinating conjunctions and independent marker words as connectors.
1)Coordinating conjunctions: Peter went to McDonald to study,but he could not concentrate because of the noise.
2)Independent marker word: Peter went to McDonald to study; however,he could not concentrate because of the noise.
The second mistake to be discussed is the subject/verb agreement. The subject and verb should match in number, meaning that if the subject is plural, the verb should be a plural as well, and vice verse. Below are some of the examples in subject/verb agreement mistakes.
Mistakes:
1)Students is required to buy that textbook.
2)Below is some of the examples.
3) One of the boxes are open.
Corrections:
1)Students are required to buy that textbook.
2)Below are some of the examples.
3)One of the boxes is open.
Some of the common prepositions used are: on,at,in...etc. In this paragraph I will only be covering on the common mistakes made when using the following three prepositions; 'on','at' and 'in'. The word 'on' is used with days, 'at' is used with the time of the day, and 'in' is used with other parts of the day, months, years or seasons. Some examples of the common mistakes are further elaborated below.
Mistakes:
1) I will see you at Monday.
2) The movie starts on 6pm.
3) The book was published at 2008.
Corrections:
1) I will see you on Monday.
2) The movie starts at 6pm.
3) The book was published in 2008.
These are the few common grammar mistakes that I have encountered. Throughout my course of EG1471, I have a better understanding and awareness of such mistakes.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Summary for roundtable discussion
This week, we had our roundtable discussion. The topics were given to us before the recess week so that we can research for more information regarding the topics during the one week break. The topics covered in the roundtable discussion are as followed; biofuels, green chemistry, micro-chip implantation, and carbon dioxide capture and storage. This discussion enabled me to have a better understanding on the various technologies.
The purpose of green chemistry is to improve on the technology such that it helps to reduce and prevent pollution. The proposition states that the world is currently facing global warming as a result of the rapid industrialisation. In order to increase the gross profit of the country, many organisations have neglected the environment. This results in the increase of carbon dioxide capacity in the atmosphere, causing the melting of ice caps which leads to flooding in many low lying areas. Hence, countries should work on the green chemistry such as using renewable resources, energy efficient technology, and the introduction of safer chemicals and products. However, the opposition argued that green chemistry should not be implemented in all countries. Instead, it should only be implemented in the developing countries only. As for the developed countries, most of their technologies have already been fully established. As such, it will be very costly for them to switch totally to a new technology. Whereas for the developing countries, they can easily adapt to this new technology, and at the same time, educate their workforce on the fundamentals of green chemistry. I think that the opposition does not have strong evidences to oppose green chemistry. The opposition only argued that the green chemistry should only be introduced to developing countries. In addition, he did not illustrate on how the developing countries will be able to support this technology, given their financial status.
The next group presented on the implantation of micro-chips into every human. These micro-chips will be useful in a sense that they speed up the process of retrieving one's medical history and other personal data. This is extremely helpful in times of emergency where every second counts. With any delay, the patient's life is at stake. Therefore, with these micro-chips, the medical history of the patients is just a scan away. However, the opposition argued that the micro-chips may not seem as useful as they are. These micro-chips implanted into our body may travel to other parts of our body or organs, which may be a disaster. In addition, in this world where hackers are not uncommon, one's security and privacy will be very vulnerable. As such, this technology is not feasible as there are too many loop-holes. I think that this discussion is rather clear and the opposition has provided sufficient arguments as to why this technology is not advisable.
The last topic that was discussed was about carbon capture and storage. The idea of carbon capture is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will contributed to global warming. The process of how this technology works was discussed. Furthermore, the proposition discussed that there is an increasing concern regarding the environmental issues, and many countries are emphasising on being environmental friendly. Hence, the adoption of this technology can also help the organisation to gain world wide recognition. On the other hand, the opposition argued that this technology is both risky and costly. Leakage may occur should there be any miscalculation, which will introduce more harm. In addition, he argued that in order to gain recognition, there are many others ways, and there is no such need to spend a huge sum just to gain recognition. Although the jokes in the discussion may capture the attention of the audiences, I think that it is inappropriate in a formal discussion. In addition, the opposition does not have a clear argument as to why he opposed the technology. Instead, he countered the proposition by saying that he is not convincing ith their explanations.
This roundtable discussion enables me to better understand the various technologies. Unfortunately, due to the time limit, only a few of us manage to have our doubts clarified. In addition, we are also unable to wrap up and conclude discussion. I think that we should go through the discussion as a whole, so that we can learn from the mistakes made in each discussion.
The purpose of green chemistry is to improve on the technology such that it helps to reduce and prevent pollution. The proposition states that the world is currently facing global warming as a result of the rapid industrialisation. In order to increase the gross profit of the country, many organisations have neglected the environment. This results in the increase of carbon dioxide capacity in the atmosphere, causing the melting of ice caps which leads to flooding in many low lying areas. Hence, countries should work on the green chemistry such as using renewable resources, energy efficient technology, and the introduction of safer chemicals and products. However, the opposition argued that green chemistry should not be implemented in all countries. Instead, it should only be implemented in the developing countries only. As for the developed countries, most of their technologies have already been fully established. As such, it will be very costly for them to switch totally to a new technology. Whereas for the developing countries, they can easily adapt to this new technology, and at the same time, educate their workforce on the fundamentals of green chemistry. I think that the opposition does not have strong evidences to oppose green chemistry. The opposition only argued that the green chemistry should only be introduced to developing countries. In addition, he did not illustrate on how the developing countries will be able to support this technology, given their financial status.
The next group presented on the implantation of micro-chips into every human. These micro-chips will be useful in a sense that they speed up the process of retrieving one's medical history and other personal data. This is extremely helpful in times of emergency where every second counts. With any delay, the patient's life is at stake. Therefore, with these micro-chips, the medical history of the patients is just a scan away. However, the opposition argued that the micro-chips may not seem as useful as they are. These micro-chips implanted into our body may travel to other parts of our body or organs, which may be a disaster. In addition, in this world where hackers are not uncommon, one's security and privacy will be very vulnerable. As such, this technology is not feasible as there are too many loop-holes. I think that this discussion is rather clear and the opposition has provided sufficient arguments as to why this technology is not advisable.
The last topic that was discussed was about carbon capture and storage. The idea of carbon capture is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, will contributed to global warming. The process of how this technology works was discussed. Furthermore, the proposition discussed that there is an increasing concern regarding the environmental issues, and many countries are emphasising on being environmental friendly. Hence, the adoption of this technology can also help the organisation to gain world wide recognition. On the other hand, the opposition argued that this technology is both risky and costly. Leakage may occur should there be any miscalculation, which will introduce more harm. In addition, he argued that in order to gain recognition, there are many others ways, and there is no such need to spend a huge sum just to gain recognition. Although the jokes in the discussion may capture the attention of the audiences, I think that it is inappropriate in a formal discussion. In addition, the opposition does not have a clear argument as to why he opposed the technology. Instead, he countered the proposition by saying that he is not convincing ith their explanations.
This roundtable discussion enables me to better understand the various technologies. Unfortunately, due to the time limit, only a few of us manage to have our doubts clarified. In addition, we are also unable to wrap up and conclude discussion. I think that we should go through the discussion as a whole, so that we can learn from the mistakes made in each discussion.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Summary of 2 articles.
In my preparation for roundtable discussion and the writing assignment 2, I have done various researches on the topic regarding biofuels. Having done so, I have come across various interesting articles. In this entry, I will summarise two of my favourite articles about the technology of biofuels.
The first article, titled "Food vs fuel?" discusses about the anti-biofuels controversy. This article states about the various reasons as to why certain group of people or organisation oppose to the idea of biofuel. In the later part, the author analyse to what extent is the use of biofuel harmful. Firstly, the poor term biofuel as "crime against humanity". The production of biofuels drives millions of the poor population into starvation. As the demand for biofuel crops increases, the prices of this food crops skyrocket. As a result the prices of food become less affordable for the poor. Secondly, tropical rainforests are being destroyed to make way for biofuels crop plantations. Statistic has shown that "farming is responsible for 14 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions". The use of chemical fertilisers has introduced a huge amount of nitrogen into the soil, and nitrous oxide into the air. However, in the later part, the author argues that biofuel is an advantage when it is being utilise in a controlled manner. Biofuels are clean, green, renewable and sustainable. It should be produced in small-scale projects focusing on local production for local use.
The second article titled "Making biofuel from Pond Scum" was my favourite article. The idea of producing biofuel from algae was totally new to me. The fact that algae can produce 100 times more biodiesel per hectare than either canola or soy was an amazing fact to me. The author added that the production of oil from soy or canola generally requires a three to five-month growing season. However, algae are so prolific that they can double or triple overnight, and over half a batch can be harvested for oil production every day. In addition, the growth of algae does not require fertile soil. It only requires flat land, carbon dioxide and sunlight. Moreover, the growing troughs in which the algae grow under are sealed with clear plastic lids that allow in plenty of sunlight, but keep the water the plants are floating in from evaporating. As such, it is even possible to grow algae in the desert. Last but not least, the cost of biofuel is only about $70 a barrel, which is highly affordable and competitive to oil that are produced from fossil fuels.
After looking up for all these information, I have a better understanding for biofuel. These articles also provide me with more facts for the discussion in the roundtable and also in my writing assignment.
References:
Addison,K. Journey to Forever (2008). Food vs Fuel.Retrived March 3, 2009.http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Schlender,S.Making Biofuel from Pond Scum.(2007, January 26).Retrived March 5,2009.http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/making-biofuel-from-pond-scum-47237
The first article, titled "Food vs fuel?" discusses about the anti-biofuels controversy. This article states about the various reasons as to why certain group of people or organisation oppose to the idea of biofuel. In the later part, the author analyse to what extent is the use of biofuel harmful. Firstly, the poor term biofuel as "crime against humanity". The production of biofuels drives millions of the poor population into starvation. As the demand for biofuel crops increases, the prices of this food crops skyrocket. As a result the prices of food become less affordable for the poor. Secondly, tropical rainforests are being destroyed to make way for biofuels crop plantations. Statistic has shown that "farming is responsible for 14 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions". The use of chemical fertilisers has introduced a huge amount of nitrogen into the soil, and nitrous oxide into the air. However, in the later part, the author argues that biofuel is an advantage when it is being utilise in a controlled manner. Biofuels are clean, green, renewable and sustainable. It should be produced in small-scale projects focusing on local production for local use.
The second article titled "Making biofuel from Pond Scum" was my favourite article. The idea of producing biofuel from algae was totally new to me. The fact that algae can produce 100 times more biodiesel per hectare than either canola or soy was an amazing fact to me. The author added that the production of oil from soy or canola generally requires a three to five-month growing season. However, algae are so prolific that they can double or triple overnight, and over half a batch can be harvested for oil production every day. In addition, the growth of algae does not require fertile soil. It only requires flat land, carbon dioxide and sunlight. Moreover, the growing troughs in which the algae grow under are sealed with clear plastic lids that allow in plenty of sunlight, but keep the water the plants are floating in from evaporating. As such, it is even possible to grow algae in the desert. Last but not least, the cost of biofuel is only about $70 a barrel, which is highly affordable and competitive to oil that are produced from fossil fuels.
After looking up for all these information, I have a better understanding for biofuel. These articles also provide me with more facts for the discussion in the roundtable and also in my writing assignment.
References:
Addison,K. Journey to Forever (2008). Food vs Fuel.Retrived March 3, 2009.http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Schlender,S.Making Biofuel from Pond Scum.(2007, January 26).Retrived March 5,2009.http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/making-biofuel-from-pond-scum-47237
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)