In this e-portfolio, I will identify 3 of my common grammar mistakes.
1. About the articles.
I usually misuse the articles, especially the definite article, 'the'.
e.g.
"Nowadays, we will no longer be surprised when we are reading a newspaper and find it saying the average temperature on the earth has increased by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees C since late 1800's."
In this sentence, I forget to put an article in front of the 'late 1800's'. Because 1800's is a very specific period of time.
The correct version is: "Nowadays, we will no longer be surprised when we are reading a newspaper and find it saying the average temperature on the earth has increased by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees C since the late 1800's."
2. The punctuations.
Sometimes I will misuse the semicolon when I actually need a comma there.
e.g.
"As the population on the earth is growing rapidly; there will be much more pressure on the environment than ever before."
In this sentence, we don't need to use a semicolon after the word 'rapidly'. Because these two parts are actually one sentence, not two.
The correct version is: "As the population on the earth is growing rapidly, there will be much more pressure on the envrionment than ever before."
3.About the pronouns.
I sometime misuse the pronouns, caused the sentence to be unnecessariely complex.
e.g.
"From Singapore's long-term development, it has the necessity promoting green chemistry."
In this sentence, 'it' represents 'Singapore's long-term development', but these two words are too near to each other, I don't need to use a preposition.
The correct version is: "Singapore's long-term development requires promoting green chemistry."
Apr 4, 2009
Roundtable discussion
Our topic of roundtable discussion is whether should my home country support Kirchhoff's claim that 'a collaborative effort by industry, academia, and government will promote the adoption of green chemistry technologies that are necessary to achieve a sustainable society.
There are 5 people in my group, Wang He is the moderator, Yan Lujiang and me are the proposition, Yi Rui and Dean are the opposition side. We choose Singapore as our home country.
Proposition's point of view:
1.Singapore is very small, there is no natural resources here. We have to find a way to achieve sustainable development.
2.We can also improve Singapore's industrial structure by promoting green chemistry.
3.Most importantly, by promoting green chemistry, we can improve manufacturing, and being friendly to the environment.
4.Comparing with developed country, developing coumtries are more suitable to promote green chemistry.
Opposition's point of view:
1.Manufacturing is not the most important part of Singapore's GDP. We don't have to spend too much money on promoting green chemistry.
2.We have to change product line if we want to promoting green chemistry, which will be time consuming.
During the Q&A session, a classmate asked me a question why green chemistry is more suitable in developing country rather than developed country. Actually, in developing country, things are not that well developed, once they decide to apply green chemistry, they can add this concept while developing and improving their manufacturing. But in developed country, industry is very well developed, if they want to applying green chemistry, they have to stop using the old product line and build a new one, which may be costly and time consuming.
There are 5 people in my group, Wang He is the moderator, Yan Lujiang and me are the proposition, Yi Rui and Dean are the opposition side. We choose Singapore as our home country.
Proposition's point of view:
1.Singapore is very small, there is no natural resources here. We have to find a way to achieve sustainable development.
2.We can also improve Singapore's industrial structure by promoting green chemistry.
3.Most importantly, by promoting green chemistry, we can improve manufacturing, and being friendly to the environment.
4.Comparing with developed country, developing coumtries are more suitable to promote green chemistry.
Opposition's point of view:
1.Manufacturing is not the most important part of Singapore's GDP. We don't have to spend too much money on promoting green chemistry.
2.We have to change product line if we want to promoting green chemistry, which will be time consuming.
During the Q&A session, a classmate asked me a question why green chemistry is more suitable in developing country rather than developed country. Actually, in developing country, things are not that well developed, once they decide to apply green chemistry, they can add this concept while developing and improving their manufacturing. But in developed country, industry is very well developed, if they want to applying green chemistry, they have to stop using the old product line and build a new one, which may be costly and time consuming.
Apr 3, 2009
Summary
I have read to articles for preparing the roundtable discussion. One is 'Promoting sustainability through green chemistry', by Kirchhoff, from Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 44, pp 237. The other one is ''Green Chemist' shows the way for Singapore', by Shobana Kesava, from http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070506/070519-2.htm.
In Kirchhoff's journal, green chemistry is defined as 'green chemistry is about the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate te huse and generation of hazardous substances'. And sustainable development is defined as 'development theat meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
In Kirchhoff's journal, it is stated that a collaborative effort by industry, energy, academia, and government is needed to promote the adoption of the green chemistry technologies necessary to achieve a sustainable society. And the author talked in details about how the industry, academia and government should do to support green chemistry.
The citations of this journal are very good. It follows strictly the APA style. And the references comes from some other journals, the websites, some books and even national bureau, like U.S. Bureau of Engraving. All these proper citations make the contexts very convincible.
In Kesava's article, it also emphasizes the importance of green chemisty. But compare with the previous article, this one focuses more on the examples, using some facts to support the idea of promoting green chemistry. One example is that, a Japanese pharmeceutical company applies the concept of 'green chemistry' to improve their product line to remove the toxic ingredients, and save a lot of money as well. As a result, both the company and the customers are better off.
In contrast, Kesava's article does not use any citations, which is not so good. Without the citations, the readers cannot be convinced, the reader will not believe what you are saying is true. This is a very obvious shortcoming comparing with the previous journal by Kirchhoff.
In Kirchhoff's journal, green chemistry is defined as 'green chemistry is about the design of chemical products and processes that reduce or eliminate te huse and generation of hazardous substances'. And sustainable development is defined as 'development theat meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.
In Kirchhoff's journal, it is stated that a collaborative effort by industry, energy, academia, and government is needed to promote the adoption of the green chemistry technologies necessary to achieve a sustainable society. And the author talked in details about how the industry, academia and government should do to support green chemistry.
The citations of this journal are very good. It follows strictly the APA style. And the references comes from some other journals, the websites, some books and even national bureau, like U.S. Bureau of Engraving. All these proper citations make the contexts very convincible.
In Kesava's article, it also emphasizes the importance of green chemisty. But compare with the previous article, this one focuses more on the examples, using some facts to support the idea of promoting green chemistry. One example is that, a Japanese pharmeceutical company applies the concept of 'green chemistry' to improve their product line to remove the toxic ingredients, and save a lot of money as well. As a result, both the company and the customers are better off.
In contrast, Kesava's article does not use any citations, which is not so good. Without the citations, the readers cannot be convinced, the reader will not believe what you are saying is true. This is a very obvious shortcoming comparing with the previous journal by Kirchhoff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
