In general, the essay flows smoothly and logically. it gave me a clear picture of the issue although i did not get a chance to read the article itself.
In the introduction, the back ground of SMR is introduced followed by a question to reader, which attracts reader to find out more about it. Two arguments are used to support SMR, good transition singnals are used to make the flow of paragraphs logically and coherent. The problems of SMR are discussed at the end followed by suggested solutions, which makes the essay more complete.
However, there are a few grammar and spelling mistakes. And some quatationa are not cited properly, for instance, the first sentence in paregraph 3.In addition, the introduction part is divided into 4 small paragraphs, which i think can combine together or reduce to 2 parts.
For the sceond argement, no couterargement is provided and the evidence more emphsis on the difficulty of carry out the greenhouse agreement. so i suggest to use statiatical data of the larger amount of money need to be used for other solutions.
Thanks for your useful comment, Si Si.
回复删除Yeah, the opposing argument for the second part is missing, because at this time, I could not find a suitable one. So, finally, I decided to divide me essay into 2 main parts: the opposing idea and my supporting ones so that the counterarguments and the supporting ones do not need to be matched completely.
For the second part, it is quite hard to find the exact number of how much do the SRM and carbon emission cut cost, since the two of them have not been conducted yet, all the data mostly come from estimation and calculation, which varies too much. So, thanks to your comment, I have dropped out this part from my essay, as it may cause some confusion.
After all, since I did not check carefully before submit, this turned out to have lots of grammatical errors here. Sorry for this!