Mark Sears
Current Events
I read, “Fatal Superbugs:
Atibiotics Losing Effectiveness, Who says” as my article on national geographic
by Susan Brink. In this article they talk about “superbugs” which are basically
bacteria that has grown immune to one or more antibiotics. They develop a gene
for certain antibiotics and that gene protects them. Scientists believe that
bacteria got this immunity from overuse of antibiotics against viruses. People
are using antibiotics to help with viruses when your not supposed to, and
whenever you use a antibiotic that’s not needed you push antibiotic resistance
ahead. In order to fight the spread of super bugs we have to only use
antibiotics when needed.
These
superbugs largely affect humanity because 2 million people are infected
annually with antibiotic resistant bacteria each year, and 23,000 of them die
each year. That’s a very large number. Also we are the direct reason for these
superbugs because we keep using antibiotics for viruses when your not supposed
to. If we stop using antibiotics for viruses then we can limit these
“superbugs”.
This
was a very well written article. It was broken up into eight paragraphs each
with their own question as a title, so you know exactly what this paragraph
will be answering. This is helpful because you know what the paragraph is about
before you read it, and they are good questions because I was asking the same
ones to my self throughout the reading. I also liked how they got professional
views from Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics and The Food and Drug
Administration. Finally, they included many interesting facts to keep you engaged.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCurrent Events
ReplyDeleteI read Mark’s review of the article titled “Fatal Superbugs: Antibiotics Losing Effectiveness, Who Says.” I thought that Mark did a very good job of reviewing this article, and there were many things that I think he did very well. The first thing that I think Mark did well was making his review short, and to the point. I liked this because it made it quick to read and take information from. I learned a lot about this article in a few sentences, and I think that this made the article much clearer to read. Along with being short, Mark was able to answer the questions very to the point. This made the article review easier to comprehend and read. I also liked how his choice of article was an article that could impact us. It was an article that described something that could impact how we live our lives, and I found that interesting.
Even though his article had very good aspects, there were a few points that could be improved. His article review could have used better grammar, like knowing where to use a period and where to use a comma. This would make the article review easier to understand and it would help us know where a point ends and another begins. Also, his capitalization could be improved. These two things are very small, but they would make the article review much easier to read and understand.
Mark’s article review was very good and had many good features, but something that stood out to me in particular was how he chose an article that was not about Ebola, and was still about a sickness. This made the review much more interesting to read. I liked how his article review was about something that could potentially impact us in the future.
In conclusion, I think that Mark’s review was very good, and only needed minor changes to it.
Mark's review of the article "Fatal Superbugs: Antibiotics Losing Effectiveness, Who Says," was great in many aspects. For instance, Mark did exactly what a summary should do, SUMMARIZE. While it seems obvious to many, it is a fact overlooked by many. He was concise, made the points he needed to make, and didn't include unnecessary information. Also, Mark does a good job connecting the article to everyday life. He explains how these bugs could effect us, especially negatively, and does a good job also raising awareness. Lastly, Mark has a good flow to his article. He uses good transitions and ends all of his main points with good concluding statements and words. He leaves the reader thinking all of these main points.
ReplyDeleteHowever, all good articles are still with flaws. Mark's final conclusion could have been made better. I tend to try and make my conclusions powerful and try to leave the reader thinking. However, Marks conclusion kind of drops you off an edge, and leaves you in an awkward state where you don't know if the sentence is over or-. Like that. Secondly, he could also have done a little bit better hooking the reader. Rather than just stating the name of the article, he could have asked the reader a question. However, these changes are simple to change.
I really liked Mark's review because I have been seeing all these "EBOLA OUTBREAK IN NYC" articles, and they have been getting on my nerves, the sheer amount of them. So, it was a nice surprise to see an article that was about sickness and health, but not about Ebola. Because of this, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Mark's article and look forward to reading more of his work in the future.