APP3 Argument Essay Assessment :
Argument Essay
| Family name: | |
| First name: | |
| Student number: | |
| Class: | |
| Date: |
Assessment rules:
- Assessment rules must be observed for the duration of the assessment i.e.120 minutes.
- By submitting this assessment, you declare that the work is original and your own work.
- You are not to submit work plagiarised from any other person or source.
- You may use a dictionary and/or thesaurus, but please be aware that it can be time consuming.
- You must have your camera on, and face visible in the camera for the time period of the exam.
- Respect the space of other students by not creating loud noises.
- You may use the restroom whenever you need without consulting the teacher.
- Please send questions to the teacher privately using the zoom chat function.
- You must stop work and stop writing and submit your assessment essay when the teacher instructs you to do so.
Marking Guide
| Elements and Criteria | Circle Score |
| Understanding the essay question and type: | |
| Demonstrates thorough understanding of essay title and type by directly addressing all parts of the question | 4 |
| Demonstrates good understanding of essay title and type by addressing most parts of the question | 3 |
| Demonstrates some understanding of essay title and type by addressing some parts of the question | 2 |
| Demonstrates minimum understanding essay title and type but fails to address most parts of the question | 1 |
| Organisation and overall structure: | |
| Essay includes a fully developed introduction, body paragraphs and a conclusion | 4 |
| Evidence of essay structure, however; some parts are more developed than others. | 3 |
| Some evidence of essay structure, however; some may not be addressed | 2 |
| Minimum evidence of essay structure, themes are linked together in a series of sentences. | 1 |
| Lexical Resources: | |
| Demonstrates use of powerful academic vocabulary suitable for the task. | 4 |
| Demonstrates use of good academic vocabulary suitable for the task | 3 |
| Tries to use academic vocabulary related to the topic, however; uses a minimum range of words | 2 |
| Academic vocabulary is limited and tends to make a lot of mistakes in word choice | 1 |
| Sentence structure and grammar: Demonstrates powerful control of complex sentences, uses grammar accurately especially conditionals and passive voiceDemonstrates ability to write compound sentences, however; may have some difficulties writing complex sentences, makes minor grammatical mistakesDemonstrates some ability to write compound sentences, however; has difficulties writing complex sentences. Makes many grammatical mistakesTends to write simple sentences with noticeable grammatical mistakes | 4 |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 1 | |
| Spelling: Evidence of correct spelling of complex wordsAttempts to spell some complex words, however; makes minimum mistakesSpells the majority of high frequency common words correctly; however, makes many mistakes with complex wordMakes mistakes with spelling both common and complex words | 4 |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 1 | |
| Punctuation: | |
| Uses accurate punctuation which clarifies structure and creates effect | 4 |
| The majority of punctuation marks are used correctly | 3 |
| Evidence of accurate use of capital letters and full stops, however; tends to make many mistakes | 2 |
| Minimum use of punctuation evident in the writing | 1 |
| Harvard In-text Citation A good balance of citation, format is correct, and citations strongly support opinion | 4 |
| Either too many or too few citations with one or two mistakes in format, however citations support opinion | 3 |
| Consistently makes mistakes in the formatting of parenthetical citation, tends to have only few citations with limited or vague evidence to support opinion | 2 |
| Attempts to include citation, however; provides very little or unrelated evidence to support opinion | 1 |
| Overall Score: | |
| A = (100-80%) | |
| B= (79-65%) | |
| C= (64-50%) | |
| D= (Below 50%) | |
You have 120 minutes to write an essay on the following topic:
Meat production produces tonnes of greenhouse gas and uses too much land and water. As an alternative, lab-grown meat has recently been considered a healthier and an environmentally friendly source of dietary protein. While some argue that lab grown meat is healthier and approximates the same taste of real meat without the environmental devastation, others believe it is unethical and very expensive to produce. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Writing Guidelines:
- Your essay should be approximately 500 words.
- Your essay should be written in an academic style
- You must use at least 3 sources provided in your response and sources should be referenced using Harvard intext citation style. No Harvard reference list needed.
| Livestock raised for food already contributes about 15% of the world’s global greenhouse-gas emissions….A quarter of the planet’s ice-free land is used to graze them, and a third of all cropland is used to grow food for them. A growing population will make things worse. It’s estimated that with the population expected to rise to 10 billion, humans will eat 70% more meat by 2050. Greenhouse gases from food production will rise by as much as 92%.” |
Source: Firth 2019
| According to a prominent Australian animal scientist spoken to by Beef Central, multiplying animal cells to create a form of meat protein in a lab requires the use of a medium based on foetal blood plasma. Foetal blood is produced by slaughtering a pregnant cow, removing its unborn calf from its uterus, and harvesting the blood from it. While a synthetic alternative to foetal blood does exist, it is apparently prohibitively expensive to produce, the meat scientist said…. One is that making the product requires something called fetal bovine serum. FBS is harvested from fetuses taken from pregnant cows during slaughter FBS also happens to be eye-wateringly expensive. It is used in the biopharmaceutical industry and in basic cellular research, but only in tiny amounts. Cultured meat, however, requires vast quantities. All the lab-meat startups will have to use less of it—or eliminate it completely—to make their products cheap enough. |
Source: Condon 2019
| There are public health problems surrounding livestock production. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes and colorectal cancer are associated with the consumption of red meat (Larsson & Wolk, 2006; Song, Manson; Buring, & Liu, 2004). Over-consumption of meat may be responsible for a quarter of all ischemic heart disease, or 1.8 million deaths, annually (Key, Davey, & Appleby, 1999). Specifically, the meta-analysis of Larsson and Wolk (2006) suggests that as little as 120 g red meat/day or 30 g processed meat/day would significantly raise the relative risk of colorectal cancer. It remains to be established which nutrients in meat are causing this risk, which makes it very difficult to specifically develop alternatives aiming to reduce this risk. In addition to these adverse health effects, foodborne pathogens found in meats, such as Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli, are responsible for millions of episodes of illness each year From an epidemiological point of view it is evident that these pathogens and emerging diseases, such as avian and swine influenza, are associated with the intensity of livestock farming and other anthropogenic developments in the bioindustry. |
Source: Post 2012
| The project of in vitro meat is typically addressed within the moral framework of consequentialist and deontic ethics (or some variations of these two). Considered from a consequentialist standpoint, the question of the morality of lab-grown meat would seem quite clear-cut. According to consequentialist ethics, an action is right just if its consequences lead to the promotion of maximum utility. Assuming the desirable outcome thesis, a consequentialist would certainly approve in vitro meat. Under this assumption, animal suffering would be dramatically reduced or perhaps even eliminated while meat eaters would have their fix and be happy. This scenario seems to be ideal from a utilitarian point of view. And in such a case, it would be the end of the story. Rights theorists or deontologists would differ in their approach from utilitarians, in the sense that the goal of deontology is to do the right thing for the right reason. But it would seem that even deontologists would have no problem supporting production of lab-meat. |
Source: Alvaro 2019
Figure 3. The environmental impact of different protein sources. Energy use (A), greenhouse gas emissions (B) and land use (C)
Source: Tuomisto 2018 – EMBO Reports
| A first set of determinants of acceptance or rejection included the perceived personal and societal benefits and risks of the technology, as well as perceived differences in who eventually benefits and who bears the risks associated with the technology and its end products. A second set of determinants of consumer acceptance or rejection is related to the technology itself. Technology-related perceptions pertain to perceived scientific knowledge or uncertainty (which is still substantial in the case of cultured meat, e.g., scalability of the production process or the replacement of serum-based culture media), perceived controllability of the technological processes (e.g., quality control and safety monitoring of cell and tissue cultures), and perceived naturalness of the technology and product. The perceived naturalness of food and food production technologies, for example has been shown to strongly influence the acceptance of innovative food technologies. Furthermore, the perceived efficacy of the regulatory framework and general trust in science and regulation in the food domain were identified as trust-related issues that determine public and consumer acceptance of novel agro- food technologies. |
Source: Verbeke, Sans, and Van Loo 2015
| Discussions of problems related to the potential success of in vitro meat technologies in becoming a suitable replacement for in vivo meat primarily focus on three aspects of the production process: Price—current protein production is very expensive. For example, in 2013, in London, an in vitro meat burger was taste-tested in an effort to demonstrate proof of concept and edibility. That single burger, funded by Google’s Sergey Brin, was purported to cost US$325,000. Texture—that same burger was described as having the mouth feel of cake. This relates to a more fundamental biological problem. To more closely mimic a typical muscle, researchers have to generate or replace things like blood vessels, connecting tissue, and a suitable, edible, three- dimensional scaffold. Acceptance—There are groups that seem primed for acceptance: the less finicky (like the ardent fan of the hotdog eating contest), those with more specific needs (like the deep space traveller), or members of the technological or gastronomical avant-garde. However, a large number of people would have to find meat produced in this method as functionally equivalent to more traditional meat production techniques, and some remain very skeptical. Hopkins and Dacey (2008) suggest that acceptance showed follow from a kind of functional equivalence, arguing that: ‘‘What makes meat ‘real’ is its constituent substance, not its mode of production’’ (586). |
Source: Galusky 2014
Use this space to brainstorm ideas and outline your essay. This will not be assessed.
Essay writing space
Visit:https://auspali.info/
Also visit:https://www.notesnepal.com/archives/767
YOUR COMMENT