Corn

Research indicates that bioethanol has been used for 30 years and that 90% of bioethanol is
produced in the United States, so corn is a good source of bioethanol. The United States
manufactures bioethanol. The United States government even offers tax breaks. Miriam believes
corn is a good source of bioethanol based on her research, whereas Kristin believes it is not a good
source of bioethanol. However, I am more inclined to agree with Kristin because she is more
reasonable.

Miriam asserts that corn is a good source of bioethanol because studies conducted in the
United States indicate that it has been used for thirty years. This demonstrates that corn is a good
source of bioethanol because it has been utilized for an extended period. However, when corn is
scarce in Mexico, its price increases, making corn-based products more costly. In addition, the
United States government imposes taxes and credits to increase profits, which are then used to
develop the country and improve people's lives.

Kristin argues that corn is not a good source of bioethanol because an increase in demand in
the United States raises the price of corn in Mexico, which in turn raises the price of fuel per gallon.
As a result, people in Mexico cannot afford food, which leads to malnutrition, population decline,
and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Which is a major contributor to global warming, and when
there is a greater demand for corn, it produces more greenhouse gases, affecting the entire planet,
including the melting of ice at the North Pole and the flooding of countries that are surrounded by
water or susceptible to flooding. An additional natural disaster is a volcano eruption, which occurs
when the temperature of the mantle layer rises and is released by volcanic eruption, resulting in
earthquakes, acid rain, and the death of fish due to the poisonous water, as well as the starvation of
the local population.

Lastly, I agree with Kristin's assessment that corn is not a good source of bioethanol because
it produces greenhouse gases, which are the primary cause of global warming, the effects of which
affect everyone on Earth. In contrast, corn is one of the country's primary sources of income,
providing funds for the development of the nation and its people.
 Robotics

Introduction:

Robotics technology has made significant advances in recent years, leading to a wide range
of applications in various fields. While there are valid concerns about the potential negative impacts
of robotics, it is important to recognize the many benefits that robotics can bring to society. In this
debate, we will hear from two experts on the topic: Michael, who argues in favor of the positive
impacts of robotics, and Amy, who presents the negative side.

Body Paragraph 1: Increased Efficiency and Productivity (Michael)

One of the main benefits of robotics is the increased efficiency and productivity that they
can bring to various industries. For example, robots can work around the clock without needing
breaks or time off, allowing for a continuous production process. In addition, robots can perform
tasks with a high level of precision and accuracy, reducing the likelihood of mistakes and the need
for rework. This can help to increase the overall output and competitiveness of businesses that use
robotics.

Body Paragraph 2: Job Loss and Unemployment (Amy)

However, Amy argues that the use of robotics can lead to widespread job loss and
unemployment. As robots become more sophisticated and able to perform a wider range of tasks,
they may replace human workers in certain industries. This could lead to a significant reduction in
job opportunities, particularly for workers with lower levels of education or skills.

Body Paragraph 3: Improved Safety and Health Conditions (Michael)

Michael counters Amy's argument by pointing out that robotics can actually improve safety
and health conditions in certain industries. For example, robots can be used to perform tasks that
are dangerous or physically demanding for humans, such as handling hazardous materials or working
in extreme environments. This can help to reduce the risk of injury or illness for workers and
improve their overall quality of life

Conclusion:

After considering both sides of the argument, it is clear that the benefits of robotics
outweigh the potential negative impacts. While there are valid concerns about job loss and
unemployment, the use of robotics can also lead to increased efficiency and productivity, improved
safety and health conditions, and job creation and economic development. It is important to
recognize the many ways in which robotics can positively impact society and to work towards finding
solutions to address any negative consequences that may arise. In conclusion, the use of robotics in
modern society has the potential to bring significant benefits, and it is important to continue
investing in and developing this technology in a responsible and ethical way.
Criteria: 45 mins

- 4-7 paragraphs
- Word counts 300 – 500 words
- Vocabulary
- Transition words
- Grammar
- Keywords

RLA Pattern

Intro

The article presents arguments from both supporters and critics of X. Both sides provide
good support for their positions. Nevertheless, the argument against X is stronger and more valid. It
responds to parts made in the claim in favor of X and also includes reasonable arguments of its own.

Body1 อวย

First of all, one of the arguments used by supporters of X is that because SV Furthermore, a
statistic claiming that SV. However, that information is not reliable since 1/2/3

1. it is outdated 2. it is not clear 3. It does not have a dependable source

Also, SV. This finding is again suspecting as 1/2/3

1. it is outdated 2. it is not clear 3. It does not have a dependable source

Thus, this side of the issue is not logical enough.

Body 2: ด่ า

On the other hand, the argument against X is much more credible. For example, it informs
you that SV. Also, the result of more "recent" research provides evidence against X by stating that SV
This sounds more promising as 4/5/6

4. they are up-to-date 5. they are evident 6. they have a dependable source

In addition, SV. These findings are more plausible because 4/5/6

4. they are up-to-date 5. they are evident 6. they have a dependable source

Hence, this side is more convincing.

Conclusion

All in all, the best-supported position in this article is the position against X. The argument in
favor of X contains misplaced and unclear data, while the opposition's argument is more valid with
tangible examples.
 Minimum Wages

Intro

The article presents arguments from both supporters and critics of raising minimum wages.
Both sides provide good support for their positions. Nevertheless, the argument against raising
minimum wages is stronger and more valid. It responds to parts made in the claim in favor of raising
minimum wages and also includes reasonable arguments of its own.

Body1 อวย

First of all, one of the arguments used by supporters of raising minimum wages is that
because it reduces the lag in the purchasing power of industrial workers and to strengthen and
stabilize the markets for the farmers’ products. Furthermore, a statistic claiming that it is important
to devise ways and means of insuring to all able-bodied working men and women a fair day’s pay for
a fair day’s work. However, that information is not reliable since it is outdated. Also, enlightened
business is learning that competition ought not to cause bad social consequences. This finding is
again suspecting as it is not clear. dependable source Thus, this side of the issue is not logical
enough.

Body 2: ด่า

On the other hand, the argument against raising minimum wages is that American business
would be harmed by the policy which is more credible. For example, it informs you that employers
will have to come up with a way to make more money, to pay their workers, which could end up
making them cut costs, Also, the result of more "recent" research provides evidence against raising
minimum wages by stating that many more employees could get expelled in the process, and will be
earning less than before, which made the proclaimed arguments invalid. This sounds more
promising as they are up-to-date. In addition, if they raise the price of goods and services, then
people will have to spend more on life essentials such as food and transportation. These findings are
more plausible because they are evident. Hence, this side is more convincing.

Conclusion

All in all, the best-supported position in this article is the position against raising minimum
wages. The argument in favor of raising minimum wages contains misplaced and unclear data, while
the opposition's argument is more valid with tangible examples.
 NASA Funding

Intro

The article presents arguments from both supporters and critics of NASA's Funding. Both
sides provide good support for their positions. Nevertheless, the arguments against NASA's Program
funding is stronger and more valid. It responds to parts made in the claim in favor of NASA's funding
and also includes reasonable arguments of its own.

Body1 อวย

First of all, the arguments made by the supporters of NASA's funding is that because the
money going into NASA's program is a federal budget burden. Furthermore, a statistic claiming that
the program’s many benefits far outweigh its relatively tiny budget. However, that information is not
reliable since it is not clear. Also, NASA missions have greatly expanded humanity’s understanding of
the Universe. This finding is again suspecting as it does not have a dependable source. Thus, this side
of the issue is not logical enough.

Body 2: ด่า

On the other hand, the argument against NASA's funding is much more credible. For
example, it informs you that there are more pressing issues within the states, such as
unemployment, healthcare issues, and many more. Also, the result of more recent research provides
evidence against NASA Funding, by stating that the failure, and disaster of the rocket explosion killed
astronauts who are valuable assets to the country. This sounds more promising as they are evident.
In addition, there are more places to explore on Earth, which would be more worthwhile. This
sounds more plausible, because they are evident.

Conclusion

All in all, the best supported position in this article is the position against NASA's funding.
The argument in favor of NASA's funding contains misplaced and unclear data, while the opposition's
argument is more valid with tangible examples.