2 Responses to Causal Rewrite– NatureChild

1. davidbdale says:

   March 28, 2024 at 6:47 pm

   This is fundamentally a good opening, NatureChild, because is gets right to the point and establishes the “human stakes” of your topic.

   It’s dreadfully wordy, though. Here the same claim is made four times:

   <blockquote>the sun was essentially the “provider of life.” The sun provides us with solar energy, heat, and a light source that continuously supports the further development of life and production as we know it. With the sun providing us with so many benefits, without its energy to provide sustenance, there can be disastrous consequences. If the sun stopped energy production, all life would die, meaning that all organisms using the energy (through photosynthesis and solar respiration) would decrease.</blockquote>

   I’ll do this just once, because it’s rude and not particularly useful to students for instructors to just bully a revision through, but maybe this will illustrate an approach you can adopt:

   <blockquote>The sun’s importance has been ingrained in minds since the dawn of humanity, leaving the collective understanding that the sun is essentially the “provider of life.” Without the sun’s continuous energy, heat, and light, all life on earth would die. The day it disappeared, all organisms that depend on photosynthesis and solar respiration would die and never reproduce. Following that, only animals that eat other animals would live, and once we’d eaten all of them, there would be no more.</blockquote>

   Does that help? Same number of words (give or take), but more vivid, more straightforward, less repetitive.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. davidbdale says:

   March 28, 2024 at 7:33 pm

   For the rest, I promise I won’t rewrite you. Let’s concentrate on arguments and claims. (Did you make Promises and then deliver Prizes to readers who were paying attention?)

   From old discovered text, Humanity has recognized in cultures in Egypt, Greece, and Japan the intense role of the sun in sustaining life. In the article “How Ancient Cultures Explained Eclipses” written by Roger Culver, states that “In many cultures throughout human history, the sun was seen as an entity of supreme importance, crucial to their very existence.” (Culver, 2017). The sun’s role since the 14 century B.C.E. (Before the common era) was providing heat, warmth, and sunlight to aid the production of plants and crops. The sun was undoubtedly worshiped by masses of people like the Egyptians and the Maya, believing that this life-giving force was a divine power that controlled survival. Worshipers had the right idea about the benefits of the sun and just decided to acknowledge and honor it differently. That being said, what ultimately depends on the benefits of the sun? Plants! and let’s get into why that is.

   You can trim this, too, NatureChild. It’s a lovely parallel to point out that ancient cultures recognized the essential life-giving power of the sun, but it does little to advance the argument. Notice how many times you’re still repeating claims you made in your Introduction.

   By the way, once you tease us with “How Ancient Cultures Explained Eclipses,” don’t you feel compelled to USE THAT TERRIFYING OCCURRENCE as an illustration and warning? What would happen if the sun were fully or even partially obscured by the moon for more than a few minutes? Did ancient rulers (whose astronomers might have been able to predict an eclipse) USE that knowledge to frighten their subjects? “Obey me or I will again blot out the sun!”

   The evolution of plant life has been the main support system that keeps human existence rolling and constantly expanding over time. Plants are essential resources to the earth because of photosynthesis. Plants take in carbon dioxide and provide needed nutrients and CO2, to produce clean breathing air for humans and any other species to survive. Plants and their roots are important in supporting nutrients for soil by dying. In the article “The plant-soil Relationship” written by Martin, J. B. (n.d.) states: “Plant roots help to prevent erosion, and when plants die, they become the raw material for worms, insects, and microbes to build the nutrient-rich humus that supports robust food webs and promotes good soil structure.” (J.B). If the sun was too far or close by 3-7.5 million kilometers, the Earth would leave the habitual zone for all living processes to occur and the repercussions of this would be dire for everything else dependent on plants. Constant production of life forces would disappear from Earth due to the disturbance in the chain of life and cause a domino effect if the sun’s position were to change. 

   This feels backwards. If we’ve established that the sun is a powerful life-force, can’t we FIRST establish that everything humans consume (even the animals we eat) depends on Photosynthesis? Say things directly and this will go pretty easily. Everything in our diet depends on animals that eat plants, or animals that eat other animals that eat plants, or on the plants we eat ourselves. And none of that occurs without photosynthesis, which in turn depends entirely on the sun being not just in our sky, but exactly where it is and for exactly as many hours of the day as it appears there over the course of a year.

   Then, when you tell us that if the sun were a little closer, or farther, or less powerful, or more, or if our winters were longer and colder, or our summers hotter, we wouldn’t survive for long (if we had ever evolved in the first place).

   Then we’re going to want to know just how small a change would be required to UN-evolve us.

   Calculated energy rates from the sun have been reported to differ slightly on a day-to-day basis. Different energy rates can affect the distribution of how much energy is received on the Earth’s surface and where. If the solar energy output changes, The production of clouds will be disrupted in the atmosphere and this will affect how water distribution is conducted as well. Because the water cycle is fully supported by the sun’s energy, a change in energy production would ultimately affect the process of the water cycle. In the article “Solar Energy and the Water Cycle” posted by Earth Labs wrote “The water cycle is driven primarily by the energy from the sun. This solar energy drives the cycle by evaporating water from the oceans, lakes, rivers, and even the soil.” (Labs). This statement supports how important the sun is in supporting how water gets around on Earth. With the sun too far, there won’t be enough solar energy for the water cycle to occur. If the sun was too close, there would be too much energy and heat that results in rapid evaporation, essentially all the water would boil off the earth leaving the oceans like the Sahara Dessert. 

   This is strong. It introduces cleverly the notion of the big effects of “slight” differences. It transitions poorly to “water distribution” and “water cycle,” though, before we know whether that’s important, or why.

   It would help here to introduce the notion of “climate change” through the back door. We see that day-to-day differences have an impact. And over the last decade or two, we’ve seen how just an average increase of one degree per year globally has resulted in massive disruptions to the ocean temperature, the ocean currents, wind patterns, etc, resulting in historic floods, droughts, famines, and deadly storms.

   By the time you say a “too close” sun would boil off all the earth’s water, we’ll be primed to receive the bad news.

   The heat being received initially from the sun would increase exponentially causing the ocean’s temperature to rise. The rise in ocean temperatures would cause aquatic life to deplete especially if species need certain temperatures to thrive and reproduce. The article “Ocean Warming Is One of the Big Climate Change Question Marks” written by the U.S. Government of Accountability Office on November 30, 2023, states: “Marine heatwaves can stress and kill marine life and disrupt ecosystems. For example, they can cause coral bleaching.” (U.S GAO). Some species will be forced to migrate into new areas to continue reproduction and this could lead to more “invasive” species and overpopulation. Increased temperature will also cause coral bleaching, which means the coral will start to get rid of the algae that create their color resulting in the death of reefs and biospheres that are dependent on them.

   I see that you got to where I was begging you to get, which is great. If you prep us for this paragraph as I’ve suggested, we’ll be more than ready for these details.

   Negative effects on humans due to increased temperature can be heat-related illnesses such as rashes, exhaustion, and cramps. Dehydration would be a very common occurrence along with poor air quality that could trigger underlying complications within the body and cause the immune system to become challenged. The intense increase in temperature would make day-to-day activities limited due to essentially having a constant heat lamp beaming down on every part of the planet. If we were to be reptiles, this would be perfect for survival however I will leave that discussion to the theorists.

   Let’s not forget the wars and local massacres that would occur once the food ran out. Yes, we’d develop serious sunburns and rashes for sure, but we’d also be slaughtering each other for food. And I do mean that we’d be eating each other eventually, too.

   In conclusion, the change in the overall distance of the sun’s position would undoubtedly disturb how the earth has already adapted to be, causing rapid changes in ecosystems, habitats, and biomes. The world, which was once a piece of floating compacted rock, has adapted an accepted distance from the sun and has physically gone through evolutional changes to retain and successfully continue the production of new life at every turn.

   You’re not quite ready to say “In conclusion” yet. This long paragraph has more than one main idea. I LOVE that the earth “has adapted an accepted distance,” but it’s a little backwards, isn’t it? Earth didn’t adapt a distance. Life DEVELOPED ONLY BECAUSE it is the right distance to support what lives here.

   The Earth nurtures the Plants which produce oxygen and nutrients to sustain human life, aquatic life, animals, geographical landmarks, and so much more. A change in the sun’s position would essentially make Earth food on the stove. If you make it too hot (the sun being too close to the Earth), water will evaporate leading the majority of specimens dependent on it to die off. The Earth would become a constantly overheated rock that continues to burn off anything remaining on the surface, survival rates will reduce and force new adaptation. However, if you make it too cold you’ll be left with frozen oceans and depleting temperatures that would eventually turn the Earth into the next Pluto.

   Comparisons to other planets is also a VERY WELCOME topic, but it shares your paragraph here with a repetition of your earlier claims. If you ever feel you haven’t quite got a handle on your essay’s organization, try to summarize each paragraph in a single sentence that makes a bold claim you could call the MAIN IDEA or THESIS of your paragraph. If you can’t summarize in a sentence, or if you have too many ideas for one sentence, you have the wrong number of paragraphs. Devote one to each of your main ideas.

   I’ll stop here, NatureChild, because you already owe me an hour of Revision Time to match the hour I’ve spent on your Feedback.

   Provisionally Graded at Canvas. Regrades and additional Feedback are always available (and encouraged, even required for your Portfolio) following substantial improvements. I hope you’ll ask for help again.

   LikeLike

   Reply