When we read an essay, article, or other piece of writing, we assess its efficacy. How effectively has the author achieved his or her goals? To do this, we must attempt to identify what those goals were. Then we can proceed with our evaluation, analysis, and finally, our recommendations for improvement.
Using well-selected evidence from Nathaniel Rich’s article, and providing careful and clear reasoning:
- Examine the hypothesis that Rich wrote “Losing Earth” to expose an era of consensus and collaboration [between scientists, politicians, (Republicans and Democrats), and even the fossil fuel industry] to the politically polarized readers of 2018.
- Explain what ramifications there might be for readers in our era who learn that their political parties, Exxon, the coal industry, and others in the American Petroleum Initiative had once agreed to act? (As Jane Mayer told us, the Koch brothers turned “climate-change denial into an unchallengeable Republican talking point” (Mayer). What would present-day Republicans think as they read Rich’s revelation that their party was even more eager to act on the science than Al Gore back in 1982?)
- Evaluate the likelihood that Rich’s article could initiate a second “opportunity to solve the climate crisis” (Rich) now that we have entered a time often referred to as “the end of truth.”
- Length: Minimum 1200 Words (Provide a clear introduction, body, and conclusion)
- Include at least one image
- Formatting Style: MLA (see sample paper) (Links to an external site.)
- Proofread submission