Summary-Analysis-Response free essay sample

Response Paper In Lisa Hamiltons Unconventional Farmers; Let Them Eat Meat, she Justifies the issue of raising livestock for food causing greenhouse gas emissions. Should we be eating less meat or actually eating more? Hamiltons research found many interesting points that would interest any human beings that consume meat or any other type of consumable goods. In her essay, Hamilton begins with the statistic that eighteen percent of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock. The idea to eat less meat was established by Dr. Rakendra Pachauri. Hamilton disagreed and believed that humans should be eating more of a different kind of meat. In her research, she found that the livestock could actually service the farmers with less work by improving the soil in a natural way. Jason Mann, another farmer who also believed the livestock could have a few advantages, viewed the issue as if it were a bank account. We will write a custom essay sample on Summary-Analysis-Response or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Bank accounts allow someone to withdraw money that they place into it. Thinking in a way of a farmer, Mann saw that when he harvested a crop, he took away nutrients from the soil. In order to deposit more nutrients for the next harvest season, he would eed the nutrients from livestock manure and also use them as a natural plowing machine using their hoofs to help break up the old soil. Like the weather, the seasons change. Some seasons may produce an abundance of products to sell, but then others might produce little to done caused by droughts, lack of attention, or pesticides. Raising livestock for food acts as a back up plan. Selling the meat will allow money to still be made to keep the bank account from over drafting. Hamilton finds that it may be easier to keep the meat and vegetation at an equal level to keep he greenhouse gasses equal instead of constant rising. Lisa Hamilton used the five elements of rhetorical situation to make this essay simpler to understand the issue of the greenhouse gasses that is believed to be the exigence by raising livestock for food. This cause may not be proven completely since there are pros and cons to raising livestock for food along with having vegetation crops. These pros and cons are easier understood with Hamiltons text. She uses her research in an organized way and also uses metaphors to compare to something many adults and young adults could understand. Since she used Jason Manns comparison to a bank account, some readers might get a glimpse of the other side of the argument over this issue. The audience mainly attracted by this essay may mostly be farmers, but it could also attract vegetarians, meat market owners, produce managers, and any one else interested in the environment. Each individual reader will have many constraints towards this essay. Although the pros and cons may be equal, the issue of how to decrease the percentage of greenhouse gasses may never be solved. The livestock could help reduce the gasses by adding organic matter to the oil and breaking down dead plant residue, but will it be enough to make everyone happy? The author writes in a neutral view to prevent attracting hostile readers, but makes many excellent points Although sne tound little proot ot the exact cause to the greenhouse gasses, she did find few scapegoats (the blaming of something else causing the issue), such as the livestock emitting methane. In response, there have not been any proven facts that the livestock is the one to take complete blame for theses greenhouse gasses increasing. I agree with Hamiltons idea of eating more meat instead of less. Eating grass-fed meat is a more atural food source that is healthier for the environment. I also believe that with more research and more time, conclusions could be formed to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas in our environment by an incredible percentage. Blaming the issue on livestock who do things the only way it knows, natural, does not make sense to me since many humans have survived centuries from the livestocks ancestors. Being vegetarian to prevent the gasses from increasing is ultimately any humans right. A little change can start a huge chain reaction in the right direction to solving many issues involving our environment.

Tulving and Pearlstone Essay Example

Tulving and Pearlstone Essay Example Tulving and Pearlstone Paper Tulving and Pearlstone Paper Essay Topic: The Pearl These results show a clear difference in the number of words recalled between participants using free and cued recall. The mean score has a difference of 19. 3. This is a large difference and shows a considerable insight to the input cues have on the recovery of information from the memory. It accepts the encoding-specificity principle by Tulving and Thompson (1973). It also accepts the experimental hypothesis; the participants given retrieval cues did recall more words from the list than participant using free recall. These results reflect those gained from the study by Tulving and Pearlstone (1966) (Calculations in appendix) Discussion The results show that a person will remember more words when an appropriate cue is available as shown in the graph thus accepting the experimental hypothesis. The participants using cued recall received a mean average of 36. 5 words recalled. The range from 22-43 whilst the participants using free recall received a mean average of 17. 2 words recalled, with the range from 13-21. This shows that anomalies have not affected the result. One way in which the experiment was limited and could have been affected by is the environment it was conducted in and the participants used. The participants were all Exeter College students and have chosen to further their education, their brain is still being trained so may be more susceptible to remembering information. Many students are often asked to take part in experiments so may have been using demand characteristics, which means they might have known the study is about retrieval failure and might already have known the study that was being partially replicated. Knowing this the participants would have known how to react. If this experiment were to be conducted using members of the public the results may have been different but the outcome would be the same. This is because results from the Tulving and Pearlstone study suggests this but also anyone given cues are likely to recall more information than if they are not given cues. A way to improve this study would be to conduct it in a controlled environment, free of any distractions so that the participants were concentrating solely on the experiment. This experiment was conducted using opportunity sampling, often in busy locations. This could have affected the results by diverting the participants concentration and other information would have prevented the participant from rehearsing the words. As future research one suggestion would be to concentrate on whether there was a pattern relating to the participants sex and the score they gained. To conclude, the results show that the recall of information is greatly improved when retrieval cues are available, a significant difference in the amount of words is visible. This agrees with the results gained from the investigation by Tulving and Pearlstone (1966). This study provides evidence that the free recall group knew more than they could recall, this can be stated as both groups experienced the same conditions during the learning phase and yet the cued recall group could recall far more words.