Earth’s Inner Core

Recently, humankind and other species have been suffering because of diseases and climate
change. Humans, their flocks, and fields have been monitored by smartwatches/ chips/ drones daily.
They also receive medical support for any problem or any kind of procedure to maintain their health.
Notwithstanding, they continue to suffer the health impacts and environmental crises as their
forefathers or any Bible character or other oddest book which describes apocalyptic events.
The main contrast is that we have the internet, mainstream media, influencers, and different
sorts of the asset to follow everything in real life, even though humankind has not brought any solution
or a good outlook about the future until now.
After two researchers published an article entitled “Multidecadal variation of the Earth’s inner-
core rotation” on the Nature Geoscience website on 23 January 2023. Various media outlets have
dealt with this issue in divergent ways since then. The human effect can change Earth's inner core
rotations or even stop it. Or, they are just unfortunate.
Three articles about this issue will be shown and compared from different media: CNN,
Gizchina, and Science News. The first is CNN with the headline “Earth’s inner core may have stopped
turning and could go into reverse, study suggests”. I believed that it is which least-passing information
to the public because the writer, Lianne Kolirin, made excessive use ofput many reported speech, but
even so during the reading someone could become confused aboutto know who said what; general
ideas; mentioned famous names but she did not build their researches up; and there wasn’t any
conclusion. Different from the others, she used the structure may / might + perfect infinitive to talk
about the possibility that something happened in the past. And, the others articles used present
continuous tense to tell about Earth’s inner corner event more often. On the other hand, CNN
attached a short video in which they interviewed Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at – the
City University of New York. There it is possible to understand better the research that was and how it
is possible to recreate a model of the inside of the Earth.
The second is Gizchina with the headline “ The inner core of the earth has stopped rotating,
what are the consequences on human lives?”, written by Frederick Nyame. In this text, it is more
overriding interaction with the public considering the structure "may + have" used to refer to the
present or future and show possibility. Furthermore, he compared the Earth with a big ball. He
mentioned Song’s spinning theory to explain the few studies about Earth’s inner core nowadays. He
used to reported speech to reinforce the information given and, there is a conclusion in his text when
referring togiving the consequences that humankind could suffer: troubles with our magnetic field.
Last but not the least, Science News with the headline “Earth’s inner core may be reversing
its rotation.”, written by Nikk Ogasa. He used the modal verbs: may/ might and, also used the
structure of present perfect and the structure may / might + perfect infinitive to talk about the
possibility that something happened in the past. He describes a bound of events which occurred
during the time and used technical words, reported speech and connectors that helped to linkconnect
ideas. He mentioned Song’s research too. And in his conclusion, nobody knows what could happen to
us and Earth.
All things considered, the easiest to read was the article published by Gizchina and the least
was CNN. About the Earth’s inner core event, nobody has a conclusive idea about what caused it and
the consequences of that in our lives.
Table of Correction

Discourse Achievement 16 /20 Points

Text Cohesion 20 /20 Points
Text Coherence 19 /20 Points
Sentence Construction 8 /10 Points
Verb Forms 7/10 Points
Spelling 9/10 Points
Grammar and Lexis 9/10 Points

Score: 88/100 Points

Oral Exam

Mistakes:
has been suffered(ing)
"(h)uman"
I select(ed) different articles
Has not any conclusion - Doesn't have
The video is just 3 minutes (long)
"Stopped"

Teacher’s Comments:

Your intonation sounds stiff when you read. You sound more comfortable and natural while talking
than you do while reading.
Overall, your speech sounds decent for what you presented. The way you explained your analysis of
the articles you found was clear, with
the main issue being your difficulty while reading some parts.
The presentation didn't contain many noticeable mistakes with language.

The real problem this time is that your presentation didn't meet the guidelines, so it is hard to tell
whether the performance should
be considered good or not. You did compare different articles, but those articles were not presenting
opposing ideas, supporting different
sides or benefitting one side over the other. Your focus was on making an in depth analysis of
grammar items that were present in the texts
and explaining their uses, which sounded like a review of language items. The main goal was to
compare how different pieces of news can cover
the same topic, but choosing to present different information or using different vocabulary to influence
their readers.

Something you did right was to give your opinion on what you thought was either a nice or bad choice
of words in the articles you were analyzing.
Explaining how those choices may affect the reader's experience was the highlight of the
presentation.

Your presentation was too long, it lasted over an hour! Keep in mind that a presentation of this kind
should last about 5-10 mins on average.
One of the problems that this brought is that at one point (Very close to its start), you basically
stopped "presenting" it and instead
started just "chatting" about the material you had collected, seemingly without a clear goal.

Pronunciation 20/25 Points

Register Appropriateness 15/25 Points

Speech Organization 15/20 Points

Fluency 20/30 Points

Score: 70/100 Points