FICTITIOUS CONVERSATION WITH PROBLEM RESOLUTION

—So, Professor, doesn't it worry you the way children nowadays spend so much time in electronic devices? Take my kid for example. It cannot be right!
—Well, that depends, Is he responsible with his academic duties simultaneously?
—No way. He does not only spend his whole leisure time sticked to a screen, but I also have to almost beg him to attend his academic duties for being so absorbed in the devices.
—I see. Does he have the same attitude towards other activities or just school?
—Oh, with everything else. He is always quite reluctant to do excercise, and when I take him, he is apathetic the whole class.
—Well, that can be pretty unhealthy, then.
—What shall I do?
—Well, let's see. What have you tried?
—I had him subscribed to sport clases and I make him come with me to work so he can help me instead of playing videogames and I try to keep him busy also at home, but he just does not quit the habit.
—Those measures are sounding to me that you are rather a little bit rigid with your child. Were all those activities you take him to chose by him?
—Well, no. I chose them. But that wouldn't make a difference. Right?
—You see, if you want your child to do something else, you need to have the aim of motivating him by letting him choose his alternatives. Otherwise, he will not develop the habit of doing something else. Next time you approach him to talk about alternative activities, you should try making him feel the freedom of choosing whatever he wants. 
—What if what he wants is still not as productive as it should be? What if he does not want excercise at all?That's why I'm choosing his activities!
—That is a little risk that should be taken at the beginning, but if you want him to do other activities willingly, it is the best way to start. Once you observe he is giving in, you could carefully suggest additional types of activities.
—I had never seen it that way. I wish he could suddenly just want to do what is best for him, but you are right. That is not possible. I have to make sure he is happy with his additional activities. After all, it's his wellbeing that matters to me, right?

Text Types Tasks

The types of text the New York Times's articles, "A Coup Against the Supreme Court" and "Not So Divided After All on Foreign Policy" are narrative and argumentative.


Several similarities both texts share are:
The two articles describe an issue by its objective facts;
however, they also contain elements of subjectivism (such as adjectives and adverbs) in their narration, making them argumentative;
and regarding the inner structure, the articles both engage an issue of political nature.

As for the differences between the two textes,

• "Not So Divided After All on Foreign Policy" uses statistical information;
• this last article talks about an issue regarding the consecuences of Donald Trump's political oaths, while "A Coup Against the Supreme Court" refers to a problem of bias in the followers of this candidate;
• and "A Coup Against the Supreme Court" begins with a non-related to the specific issue introduction, it is rather set to strenghten the author's opinion.

The elements of "A Coup Against the Supreme Court" will be marked with a "👍" in the following list:

• Introduction, body and conclusion 👍
• An objective explanation of the issue 
• A timely news angle 👍
• Opinions from the opposing viewpoint that refute directly the same issues the writer addresses 👍
• The opinions of the writer delivered in a professional manner 👍
• Alternative solutions to the problem or issue being criticized 👍
• A solid and concise conclusion that powerfully summarizes the writer's opinion

Now, regarding "Not So Divided After All on Foreign Policy":

• Introduction, body and conclusion👍
• An objective explanation of the issue 
• A timely news angle 👍
• Opinions from the opposing viewpoint that refute directly the same issues the writer addresses 👍
• The opinions of the writer delivered in a professional manner
• Alternative solutions to the problem or issue being criticized 👍
• A solid and concise conclusion that powerfully summarizes the writer's opinion 👍

Pseudoscience tobacco advertising from the bad old days

These first two advertising pieces claim at the same time that the tobacco brand (Camel and Old Gold) they sell is the best, inasmuch as alleged surveys have suggested that the social sector of health professionals -including those specialized in the care of the throat- have shown to prefere the brand of each advertisement in both cases. Basically, what this means is that the majority of doctors clearly liked and/or consume a single cigarettes brand the most, but this first place in preference is occupied by at least two brands at the same time! This is an explicit incongruence.

The third piece of advertisement has also resorted to a scientific appearence, for the lack of evidence has repeated itself in this case as well. The brand prides itself in discarding out of their product a substance which is said to cause irritation, however it was thought to be at the same time "indispensable to cigarette manufacture". The content of the ad talks about this modification as a wonderful achievement, although the reason for this is not explicit. Nevertheless, it is also written in conveniently small letters what the main content never made clear: "Philip Morris & Company do not claim that Philip Morris Cigarettes cure irritation. But they do say that an ingredient--a source of irritation in other cigarettes--is not used in the manufacture of Philip Morris."

So if the cigarettes of this brand do not cease to be irritating, why is it important to mention that an irritating substance was taken out of the formula? And, if the modification made a real important difference on health for positive, wouldn't advertisers be glad to comunicate the scientific evidence, the irrefutable facts? This does not guarantee, for example, that heretofore was not replaced by another ingredient as harmful as the last, knowing that it was thought to be indispensable.

Information and images' source:
ROLLES, S. (2008). "Pseudoscience tobacco advertising from the bad old days". [Online] consulted on October 12th, 2016 at the site <http://transform-drugs.blogspot.mx/2008/10/pseudoscience-tobacco-advertsing-from.html>

My opinion regarding the waste of food.

The definition of waste is to use or consume to no avail. Therefore, by definition I can conlcude that the wasting of anything is negative. Thus, as a partisan of practicis, it is an action that I disapprove.

The waste of food is a most tragical example of this action, for its production implies the use of a much more complex set of resources than it may seem, whereas it entails the highly important environmental consecuence of the production of one of the most harmful greenhouse gases, methane.

It is imperative that both, the food industries and consumers themselves, become aware of the momentousness of the fact in order to be erradicated, inasmuch as it is taking place in a massive degree, for it entails consequences of this same proportion.