need help for english essay
zzy950715
essay2.docxEffective and ineffective writer have significantly different characteristics in their writing, planning and communication processes. In finding out what makes a specific writer effective or ineffective, a corpus of investigations is undertaken to establish writer’s patterns, difference in the mental representations of the target audience by the writer, and the successful and unsuccessful writing strategies. In this essay the concentration is on evaluating the effectiveness of the articles, A Synthetic World, and The Singularity: there's no there with regard to what people should be worried about. In my view, the article A Synthetic world is effective and the article The Singularity is ineffective. I will explain on the, evidence, audience, and the credibility of the authors and give the reasons regarding how they make an article effective or ineffective. After this, I will end up with the conclusion.
Based on the evidence, target audience and credibility the authors, I take a stand that the article Synthetic World is effective and the article Singularity is ineffective. First, Sterling is observed as an active partaker in advancement of the development in science and its applications on products that affect human life. Based on the factor he is a lecturer at the school of science, University of Bristol, it affirms his position that he is arguing from a professional view with a wealth of experience in his teaching and as an active scientist. This therefore make the article effective in the sense that the reader develops interests to read and digest on it critical because the work is from a profession with great insight in the field of science. Secondly, looking at the article Synthetic World, the writer has used precise and clear examples to support the evidence about his main claim. For instance, Sterling mention Dolly & Co. concerning single stem cell and the engineering of genome to re-create living organism or modify pertinent features of specific living organisms. Another precise example he utilized is on woolly mammoth genome sequenced in 2008 and which is be cloned at the moment using extant elephant as surrogate mothers. Lastly, the writer gave example of the pragmatic efforts being undertaken to re-create ancient ecosystem like that of Pleistocene Park in Russia by reintroducing the descendants of the extinct mega fauna. The writer speaks to the general audience in a simplified ways that is easier to understand as he does not use scientific jargon that is not understandable to the layman.
Typically, the article Synthetic World is eff3ective in convey the message and creating the aura or the atmosphere intended in the sense that the writer uses specific examples and makes clear connection on what the people should worry about and the set precedence . The article generally establishes a clear link between arguments and evidence concerning the main topic and hence, it is an effective article.
In The Singularity: there’s no there there by Seirian Sumner, the writer is portrayed as tending to operate on fiction and fantasies. Despite the fact that Sumner is an engineer and in fact, he secured employment with Google recently. His arguments are injured in the sense that he explains technical singularity as an outsider without much active role in teaching, innovating or taking part in projects that tend to aggravate the achievement of unprecedented changes in technology. Secondly, the essence of using examples is to provide clear view of the asserted claim, but in the case of Sumner, the examples given does not demonstrate the argument in action in the sense that the examples do not show any connection with the claim made by the writer. The examples for instance the mention of wireless devices and not a specific wire device like the blue tooth earphones makes the example ineffective. It is a bad example to support the claim because it is vague and sound ambitious in the sense that does not point to any particular case in action. Furthermore, the approach audience is unsystematic and pointless as the writer address the writer in casual manner although the general language is formal. He incorporates use of ambiguous statements like “a glut of technical riches never properly absorbed” which characteristically will tend to confuse the reader or the general intended audience. Therefore the writer approach to its general audience is ineffective.
In conclusion, the articles referred in the article explains on the human fear of the worst in attempting to understand, what the future holds with regards to scientific advances aimed at enhancing humans' natural abilities and improving quality of life. However, the claims, though about what should be worried about, have difference strength in the sense that one is effective and the other is ineffective based on the argument given above. The writers of the articles attempted to rationalize and persuade on what should be feared or what is dangerous. However, Sterling as opposed to Sumner is an effective writer in the sense that he demonstrates nightmare scenario of Synthetic biology and he is able to achieve and how much may occurs beyond the realm of the human ability. Sumner though argues on what should be worried about, his persuasion on the Singularity pose immense threat but just a like digital tempest in a teacup.
