Basically what you have cut and pasted (I would need to go back and check to see if you actually properly cited the original source?) is an editorial.
I have graded academic papers, edited a book, worked as an academic researcher and have published in peer-reviewed journals (journal of psychology and human sexuality for example - shoddy little publication but they told me it was prestigious)... so I am going to go out on a limb and say that I may be able to evaluate your resource and conclude the article would not be acceptable at even a tenth grade level as an appropriate resource?
I have not written a tenth grade paper, well... since the tenth grade, but I understand there is a push now for preparing young adults to write a proper paper?
Nor would recycling companies, Greenpeace, Time Magazine, or Wikipedia make the grade...
Sorry, I would have to negative mark you on that.
This does not mean that your points are not true, it simply means your sources are not credible, nor have you made a compelling arguement.
And in your previous thread/poll your language (descriptive and emotive) attempted to portray a negative slant to one side (not yours) and a positive slant to the other (yours).
So in addition to actually writing a compelling and engaging arguement you need to work on your choice of wording and let your facts make your point. Manipulating language and using negative desciptors is a cheap way to try and make your point (and exactly why Time and Greenpeace are not credible sources).
Good luck with it.
I am looking forward to reading something a bit more substantial from you on the issue.
Bruce
PS: Citations. Citations. Citations.
Reply With Quote