Edit draft
um2030
WritingTask1-Draft3submission_HussainSulais-draft3.docxName: Hussain Sulais Sec:41 ID:201853520
Nuclear energy
Many years ago, Saudi Arabia depend fully and only on oil. Mohammed bin Salman came, with 2030 vision, and suggest that Saudi Arabia should not depend only on oil and have other sources. Nuclear power one of the sources that the country should invest on and use. Many people are supporting with this idea and others are oppose them and it will cost too much. However, the contrary should invest on nuclear in order to improve the economy by vary the sources of energy to make profit and in order to have fresh and clean air on the environment. This essay will argue two reason why Saudi Arabia should invest on nuclear energy.
The first reason why Saudi Arabia should depend on nuclear energy is to improve the economy. Nuclear power is very effective because it generates energy more than any other sources. Nuclear power produces power density more than approximately 400 times wind and solar power density energy (Richard, 2020). This means nuclear energy has the ability to depend on it more than any renewable energy and it will enhance the contrary economy. The sources is limited and the country should invest on.
Another reason why Saudi should invest on nuclear energy is environmental reason. Nuclear energy has less emission of CO2 than any other source of energy. Jones (2017) argue that Nuclear is the lowest source that generate greenhouse gases contrast with other sources. Which means if we use nuclear energy the global warming will decrease and will not effect on wildlife.
In conclusion, nuclear energy helps the world to have batter environment without greenhouse gases and improves the economy. The government should consider on nuclear and the people should support them. They should replace the manufactures of oil and try to use nuclear power. When the country on the future relay On nuclear they will have constant profit and many people recommended it.
Writing Task: feedback and comments
|
Content |
|
Response: Excellent (A) very good (B) good (but some parts digress) (C) adequate (partial response) (D) question not addressed (F)
Original thinking: original ideas very clearly expressed (A) ideas clear – some original thinking (B) some attempt at original thinking but some reliance on sources (C) little evidence of original thinking and over-reliant on sources (D) random information with little sign of original thinking (F)
Use of sources to support original thinking: Excellent (A) very good (B) good (C) inadequate (D) not enough to evaluate (F) |
|
Organization |
|
Introduction: fluently moves from general to specific/sets context/clear thesis (A) moves from general to specific/sets context/clear thesis (B) attempts to move from general to specific/doesn’t develop well/doesn’t set context well/weak thesis (C) incomplete/too general-inappropriate/fails to set context/weak thesis (D)
Topic sentences and supporting material: well-formed paragraphs/focused topic sentences/well-constructed/relevant supporting material (A/B) topic sentences may lack focus/supporting material largely relevant (C) topic sentences lack focus or missing/irrelevant or poorly constructed supporting material (D) little attempt at organization/weak missing paragraph structure/very weak or missing topic sentences/random or inappropriate order of ideas (F)
Conclusion: skillfully restates thesis without unnecessary repetition (A) restates thesis without unnecessary repetition (B) restates thesis but a little repetitive (C) fails to restate thesis but repeats it (D) |
|
Language use |
|
Sentences: Excellent control of sentence structure/extensive variety (A) Very good control of sentence structure/some variety (B) Good control of sentence structure/some variety (C) Adequate control of sentence structure/limited variety (D) Little grasp of sentence structure/little to no variety (F)
Vocabulary: Extensive range of vocabulary/occasional minor errors-not intrusive (A) Wide range of vocabulary/occasional major errors-few minors-not intrusive (B) Adequate range of vocabulary/infrequent major and minor errors-occasionally intrusive (C) Limited range of vocabulary/frequent major and minor errors-often intrusive (D) Restricted range of vocabulary/full of major and minor errors-very intrusive-difficult to understand (F)
Style: Formal academic style and tone throughout (A) Some use of informal language (B) Common lapses in academic style and tone (C/D)
|
|
Paraphrase/citation |
|
Very well-constructed paraphrase/no divergence from original meaning/almost no source wording (A) All sources cited correctly/well-constructed paraphrase/minor divergence from original meaning/minimal source wording (B) Occasional citation errors/paraphrasing may be longer than original or clumsy/too much source wording/occasionally loses sense of original (C) Uses alternative to APA/some source information not cited or inaccurate/poor paraphrasing-much longer than original and very clumsy/too much source wording/may not convey sense of original (D) Source information not used or cited/little attempt at paraphrasing/too much source wording or just copied (F)
|
|
Comments |
|
Word count very very low – this should be closer to 450. Work needs to be done! The intro is missing many key components – clear discussion about nuclear energy instead of MBS and KSA government – showing both sides of the argument clearly – then giving a thesis with main ideas… please fix this. Topic sentences are too general and don’t make a strong argument. Your points of explanation do not match the points of citation – you talk about improving the economy and then give a citation about power density not explaining any connection. Sub verb agreement (Jones argues) needs to be reviewed. Random ideas are just typed to make sentences – e.g. wildlife. |
