Recent orders
Synthesis Outline
Synthesis Outline
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Synthesis Outline
Introduction
In our current world, the universe is facing a lot of environmental problems such as global warming, air pollution, waste disposal, water pollution, climate change, and many other effects. The degradation of the environment and exploitation of earth has increased in an alarming alert. Due to these complicated issues, people need to be more cautious about the way they address these environmental problems. This essay will evaluate solutions to ecological issues by looking into two articles, that is, Robert Paarlberg’s “Attention Whole Foods Shoppers,” and “How Farmers are Going to Save Civilization,” by Jenn Hardy. Also, it will look into a TEDx talk, “Permaculture-from forest to farm.” The essay will also propose a solution that can be used to solve environmental problems.
Summary Paragraphs
Attention Whole Foods Shoppers
In this article, Robert Paarlberg highlights the advantages of modern eco-foodies to the environment. He gives various crises that have led to global hunger through organic food. He suggests that if the issue of global hunger needs to be addressed, people need to look into scientific-intensive, highly exploited, and modern agricultural systems that have been developed in the West. Through this, people will be able to conquer the plague of hunger globally, especially in underdeveloped countries.
How farmers are going to save Civilization
Jenn Hardy talks about permaculture, which means taking responsibility for how one gets food. He talks about the importance of environmental sustainability by mentioning to his audience that they are part of the environment. Permaculture stands for a permanent culture that evolved in the 1970s. Hardy talks about how people need to understand agriculture and urbanize it in the cities. People need to be connected to the environment to avoid destructive human habits in the environment.
Permaculture- From Forest to Farm
In this video, Clea Chandmal also talks about permaculture being a habit that resembles the environment’s pattern. She talks about her farm and home that is modeled according to her ideas. Clea gives an example of how she lives a life that does not burden the environment. She is after helping people co-exist with nature. Her talk is about adapting a supportable lifestyle in the modern world.
Synthesis Paragraph
Major Similarities between the articles
In all three articles, the authors talk about the effects of human degradation and industrialization on the environment. They all give the disadvantages of not taking care of the situation. The articles also provide solutions on how we can protect our habitats by taking care of them.
Major Differences between the Articles
Although the articles have several similarities, they also differ in different ways. Robert encourages the use of scientific-intensive systems in curbing global hunger while Clea talks about having a connection with the environment to stop environmental degradation. Jenn Hardy also talks about urbanizing agriculture to avoid human destruction to the environment.
Points from the article that you agree with
From the articles, I agree with Jenn and Clea that we need to connect to the environment so that we avoid its destruction. Protecting the environment will benefit us since the consequences brought by human damage does not only affect the environment but also us.
Point from the article that you disagree with
I’m afraid I have to disagree with Robert about using intensive scientific methods on agriculture. These methods are harmful to the environment since they cause air pollution and soil erosion, which are detrimental to the environment.
Solution Proposal Paragraph
The primary solution to curbing environmental problems is through sustainable intensification. Sustainable intensification increases the use of efficiency in farming to reduce environmental degradation. It also assists in concentrating on one area for farming while sparing another part for the nature and production of the environment for the well-being of human life. Those who oppose the point may say that sustainable intensification is not enough since agriculture continues to increase. The opposers will say that there will be no enough reduction of area under agriculture. However, sustainable intensification would be the best solution since it provides enough environment that would be spared. Therefore, it would prevent environmental damage.
Conclusion Paragraph
Overall, humans need to know that the environment is not separate from them but part of them. Through this, it will be easy to take care of the environment since they know the advantages of a friendly atmosphere. The actions taken by human beings will determine the type of environment they are living in.
Synthesis Group Work Activity
Synthesis Group Work Activity
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor’s Name
Date
Synthesis Group Work Activity
Hello, my name is Damir Collins and it is a pleasure to meet all of you finally. Together as a group, we will discuss whether or not educational institutions such as universities should be permitted to utilize Wikipedia as a research tool. Then we will try to conclude it as a whole. The speaker for our group will be XXX, and it will be his role to moderate our discussions. The scribe for our group will be XXX, and it will be his responsibility to make a record of all of the group’s decisions, activities, and concerns raised during discussions and also to make a record of any critical conversation that will take place during the talks so that recurring subjects may be avoided.
Even though Wikipedia is a resource that may be quite useful to students to learn new things and do research, learning institutions such as universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. This is because, despite its entire reference works, Wikipedia is not considered a credible source of information since not everything found in Wikipedia is comprehensive, accurate, or unbiased. In addition, Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as a research tool in universities since Wikipedia is not a reputable source when it comes to citations and should not be relied upon. Since Wikipedia is a source that different users usually develop, anybody may modify it at any moment. Besides, t[the information it includes at any one time might be vandalism, incomplete, or just plain wrong (Mercer, 2018).
Furthermore, even though individuals in the academic world, ranging from learners to professors, are increasingly turning to Wikipedia as a readily available tertiary source for knowledge on a wide variety of topics, universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. This is because Wikipedia is a project maintained entirely by volunteers, and the site can’t verify every contribution permanently. Besides, numerous mistakes go unreported for a period ranging from a few hours to several months or even years. In addition to this, there is a possibility that not all mistakes may ever be rectified. It is also possible for a change to fix an error to be undone later. Therefore, students and professors should not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.
Moreover, it is usually not a good idea to use Wikipedia as a research tool unless you are confident that it is maintained by a reputable organization such as a government science department or university or unless you have independently validated the material included on the website using other reliable sources. Wikipedia, like all other websites information, may become outdated with time. Lastly, universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool because the vast majority of the information on Wikipedia has not been validated by specialists, which means that it cannot be regarded as genuine or dependable.
Major Themes and Patterns in the Excerpts
After going through the four extracts, it is evident that they all support the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. Both extracts indirectly support the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource, and they do not show the disadvantages of using Wikipedia and why it should be discouraged.
How Excerpts Differ in Opinion
Even though the four extracts support the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource, they all differ in opinion. For example, the first extract endorses the use of Wikipedia by stating that more efforts should be directed toward motivating learners to become proficient and critical users of Wikipedia as part of their sense-making practices and information gathering. The second extract supports the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource by stating that the widespread exposure gives the impression that Wikipedia is more controversial than it is. The extract points out that many professors make substantial, though careful, use of it themselves, and as a result, they tend to advocate for a cautious approach to its use by students. The third extract’s opinion in supporting the use of Wikipedia is that due to its egalitarian approach to the presentation of information, its user-friendly design, and the fact that it is available free of charge, Wikipedia is a popular source of knowledge among undergraduate students. Lastly, the fourth extract’s opinion supporting Wikipedia is that most faculties are frequent users of Wikipedia but prefer not to talk about it.
Reconsidering My Opinion
After reading the extracts’ opinions on supporting the use of Wikipedia as an academic resource, I choose to reconsider my stand that universities should not allow the use of Wikipedia as a research tool. Therefore, I think students should be allowed to use Wikipedia as an academic resource cautiously.
Synthesis Paragraph
Finally, as a group, we argue for using Wikipedia as a research tool. According to the first extract, more effort should be put into helping students become critical and proficient consumers of Wikipedia as part of their sense-making practices and information gathering instead of advocating against or trying to prevent its usage. In addition, we argue for using Wikipedia as a research tool since, according to the second extract, many professors make substantial, though careful, use of it themselves and often advocate for a similarly cautious attitude to its usage among students.
References
Mercer, D. (2018). Why You Cannot Use Wikipedia as an Academic Source. Edge. Retrieved 5 October 2022, from https://apuedge.com/why-you-cannot-use-wikipedia-as-an-academic-source/.
The Economics Of End
The Economics Of End
Treatment options
There are tow treatment options for patient who can not receive kidney transplants these are hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.haemodyalysis is performed in dialysis outpatient centers, patients under this therapy have to make visits to the centre thrice a week lasting between 31/2 and 41/2 hours. This is a difficult treatment for patients who have other medical complications associated with the patient due to the time commitments, patients are often forced to drop out of work as they are not in a position to maintain their employment full time. This is the most chosen treatment modality by nephrologists. Some of the patients receive this treatment in their homes utilizing machines that have been built by NxStage and are trained thoroughly in there treatment.
There is logic reasoning behind this treatment but despite this fact many people are not getting home hemodialysis .a positive aspect of hemodyalsyis is the social interaction that exists between patients and staff of the centre. There is bonding between patients in the centre and go ahead to exchange information on their illness as well as the ongoing progress of the treatment. Patients tend to prefer receiving their treatment from the centers as opposed to their homes due to the fact that they can develop stress or even the development of complications outside a medical facility were one can get immediate and qualified attention.
The second treatment is peritoneal dialysis which is different from hemodialysis.PD treatments are performed each day as opposed to hemodyalysis. Both treatments are reimbursed the same way in that the same amount which is paid for a three week treatment in hemodialysis is paid in PD seven day in a week treatment. This means that hemodialysis costs more as compared to PD daily treatments. The treatment modality for PD is very flexible hence it is advantageous compared to hemodyalysis and no thrice a week travel is required. since PD uses the peritoneal membrane there are disadvantages that can be associated with this such a disadvantage is the development of peritonitis which is an inflammation followed by an infection of peritoneal cavity which is quite painful and requires a patient to shift to hemodyalysis. At the same time the patient will be receiving treatment for their infection and most of them can not revert back to PD. reimbursement for both treatment is on the basis of basic treatment and additional payments are on drugs and tests payment structures for both treatments are both same however the difference comes in the cost of the ancillary drugs. Those who are prescribed PD are healthier as v=compared to hemodyalysis and therefore they often do not require any additional drugs so as to maintain their quality of life. PD patients also have a greater kidney function which requires less treatment for disorders like anemia.
Ethical implication
Many providers in the market today are out to make profits.PD is seen to be the lowest cost from the perspective of payers but in the real sense it is very profitable to the providers. This is an unethical practice since the providers are portraying it as a cheaper option while in the real sense they are making numerous gains. There are also ethical issues that are associated with production of artificial kidneys or dialyzers. Even though hemodyalysis is considered as a safe option there is the ethical issue of dialyzers that is associated to the treatment.