Sec 4 Language Arts SIA Written Portfolio

Item 3 Draft 2: Revised SRQ Block Test Script

Sec 407 Zhang Yangfan 11-5-08

The writer suggests that it is essential and important for a woman to receive a big diamond ring from her husband-to-be when she is engaged. I disagree with the writer because in marriage, it is our loved one who matters and not the big rock.

Firstly, I disagree with the writer that “it’s the rock, not the thought that counts”. It may be true that an expensive diamond will bring women happiness. It may also more or less prove the heart of her future husband because he is willing to spend “a decent proportion of his hard-darned savings” to please her. However, I believe that a woman chooses to marry a man only because of love and not because the diamond ring offered is big. The writer may be too materialistic to put the value of a big diamond ring above that of her husband-to-be. Although “a big diamond ring is forever”, love based on money is not. In my opinion, a long-lasting marriage is supported by true love and not a big diamond ring. Therefore, I think the love between a man and a woman matters much more than the size of “the rock”.

Moreover, the writer tends to view the diamond ring as a tool to show off when describing it as “an object of envy among her single friends”, “which then leads to feelings of smug superiority”. I disagree with her. Admittedly, it is traditional for a man to offer a diamond ring as a token in an engagement. Love between couples, however, should not become a tool for women to manipulate, in this case, to exchange a big diamond ring of envy. Engagement symbolizes closer relationship between the two. It is not solely a traditional occasion for a woman to receive a diamond ring. A woman should treasure the upcoming commitment and promises behind it more, rather than being bothered by the value of a big diamond too much. Furthermore, though not all diamond rings cost an exorbitant sum of money, it would likely cost a lot if the bride-to-be wants a big beautiful rock. The writer suggests that a man should spend “two months of his salary” on the diamond ring. However, this amount of money may be better channeled to other investments. Therefore, I think a diamond ring may not be an absolute necessity in a modern engagement any more. Other forms of token will be acceptable as long as the gentleman has a true heart. The matter is not about how invaluable the token is.

In addition, the writer views a diamond as “the modern-day equivalent of cattle and land” and concludes that it is a societal practice. Nonetheless, I beg to differ. Cattle and land are practical assets in agriculture. On contrary, the writer may overvalue the practical use of a diamond. In fact, a diamond ring has no practical use at all. It is a liability which only brings short term pleasure to the bride-to-be. Ultimately, it will be replaced by a simple wedding band. Therefore, it may not be fair to view a diamond ring as useful as cattle and land. Purchasing a big diamond ring is not as practical as buying a house or other similar assets.

In conclusion, I disagree with the writer that the rock is the most important thing in an engagement. A big diamond ring should not overtake a true heart. Emotions and values are far more important than money. Marriages should base on love and affection and not the size of diamond rings. A big diamond is forever, but a marriage founded on it is likely not to be.

Sec 4 SIA LA Portfolio

# Self-initiated Reading-and-Reflection (R&R) Exercise

Issue

How America can lead the way to a greener world.

Significant ideas from readings

The U.S. produces nearly a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gases each year. The battle against global warming is a fight for the survival of the country’s coasts and farms, the health of its people and the stability of its economy—and for those of the world at large as well. There are mainly three ways for America, the dominant global player, to lead the way to a greener world.

Firstly, the most feasible method is through a cap-and-trade system that sets ceilings for carbon output and let companies that come in under the limit sell credits to those that do not, allowing them to keep polluting - a little. The effect is that overall carbon levels fall, and there is even money to be made by being greener than the next guy. That drives investment and research dollars into renewable energy and efficiency. It is true that there will be costs associated with any carbon-pricing plan; ending climate change will not be free. Yet no big harm is brought. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study found that GDP would grow just 1% less from 2010 to 2030 under Lieberman-Warner than without it—and that does not take into account the potential economic benefits. Moreover, in an April study, the International Monetary Fund concluded that smart carbon-cutting policies could contain climate change without seriously harming the global economy.

The next big piece of a global-warming-control plan involves Americans learning to be more efficient with the fossil fuels they continue to burn. Recent research from the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) shows that the U.S. could slash the projected growth in the world’s energy demand by at least half by 2020 just by taking advantage of existing opportunities to cut waste. Furthermore, MGI says annual industry-wide investments of $170 billion per year in improvements like green buildings and more efficient cars could yield an additional $900 billion per year in savings by 2020. Thus America can easily offset rising power prices caused by a carbon cap by priming the economy for a massive “efficiency surge” that will cut waste and improve energy productivity.

The final and most difficult step in the blueprint is the creation of a new energy system, one that does not depend on carbon. In other words, America can pump up research-and-development into renewable energy sources, and support companies bringing new technologies to market. This collaborates with the first step as a firm carbon price will accelerate creativity by making alternatives that much more economical. These renewable energy sources include solar energy, wind power, tidal power, geothermal energy and even nuclear fusion.

Admittedly, Americans would be a little poorer—a sustained battle against climate change will hit wallets hard, absorbing perhaps 2% to 3% of GDP a year for some time, according to energy expert Henry Lee at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, However, looking at the bigger picture, unchecked warming could even end global prosperity. Therefore, it is really time for the dominant global player, America to take actions to lead the way to a greener world.

My opinion on the issue

I agree that the three methods suggested in this article to help America to lead the way to a greener world seem feasible and effective without seriously harming the country’s economy.

However, in my opinion, the main problem here is not whether America can find such similar ways to reduce greenhouse emissions and hence decelerate climate change, but whether the people have the heart to save the environment for next generation. The latest Gallup environmental survey shows that only 37 percent of Americans worry about global warming “a great deal,” a drop from 41 percent last year. This suggests that the majority of American population is either ignorant of the urgency of ending climate change or simply staying mentally detached from the issue. Therefore, I think it is more important to educate the Americans on the responsibilities regarding climate change.

Many of the challenges we face nowadays, from poverty to armed conflict, are linked to the effects of global warming. Finding a solution to climate change can bring benefits in other areas and ultimately improve the living conditions of humans. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy told the U.N. General Assembly, “The effort to improve the conditions of man is the task of all. The earth, the sea and the air are the concern of every nation.” Being the dominant global player, America is the international leader in almost every aspect. In the battle against climate change, America should not lose to other countries as well.

References:

· BRYAN WALSH, April 28, 2008. _Why Green Is the New Red, White And Blue. _TIME VOL. 171, NO. 16. Page 31-42.