Concerning about how would I further revise this essay, since it is one of the essays in my portfolio, I have revised it for several times. I integrated the fragmented short paragraphs and made clear points at the end of the essay about how this writing process improved my English writing, and the essay appears to fit the essence of Literacy Narrative more. But since I need to submit it to a book that might potentially get published, I will make more revise on it, for instance, I might expand my story, or I might incorporate another story I experienced to strengthen my thesis, at the end I would write down the improvements more detailed and clearer.

If I cannot find resemble stories about myself to expand my idea, then I might find a story from a fiction that is helpful.

Reminisce with the past, English writing has always been my Achilles’ heel, I could still remember how awful I felt when I saw the poor 5.5 score on my IELTS transcript, writing part. The root of my previous horrible writing experience can be concluded into the following aspects: lack of vocabulary, short of thesis and analysis, always wrting in a Chinese way, scarce arguments and nearly no evidences to support the thesis. All of the aspects I mentioned above I only found out after this semester, after the intensive training of American writing style that this course taught me, and after those critical thinking I have made in order to work out the assigned papers best as I can.

So specifically, what are the aspects that I have exactly achieved until now? The first is the development of writing in an American way, at least like half an American. The writing and thinking style between American and Chinese is very different, for instance, in Chinese writing, we usually won’t render upon out viewpoints first, or maybe we don’t tell our audiences the exact point we want to make at all, but instead tell stories and make many metaphors, at the end draw an conclusion and pursue the effect that our audiences will tumble to the thesis. Just as my first paper, Fire in the Hole, throughout the whole article, I wrote a long story about my self-rehabilitation and only drew conclusion and indicated my thesis at the end. However, this kind of writing way will cause good confusion among American audiences, who usually don’t have the patience to read for more than three paragraphs if they are lost in the way of searching for thesis. So what I learned, is the importance of the appearance of my thesis in the beginning of my paper, and state out clearly why this thesis is important to my specified audiences in case of being dumped into garbage bin. Therefore in my last paper, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — Too pure to be diluted, I made my thesis in the first paragraph, “My goal in this paper is fully introduce the oil drilling issue from all kinds of aspects, naturally, politically and economically with plentiful resources to my peers.”

Specifically, in my public discourse paper Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — Too pure to be diluted, in the paragraph starts with the sentence “But the most important reason why America cannot drill there is so simple”, I make a strong point incorporated with convincing evidence and own thoughts to analyze why America should not drill oil there. Just as this sentence, “as what U.S. Geological Survey scientifically estimated after painstaking research, “The total quantity of…oil is estimated to be…10.4 billion barrels, oil within the ANWR 1002 area is…7.7 billion barrels” (4), this is the evidence, and this sentence, “Drilling in Arctic Refuge would not only highly contaminate the environment and accelerate global warming, but also brings about poor and trivial profits”, it is my own idea. This is the skill I have developed the most.

I made this brain storming map based on my organization, first I render up the main point that oil drilling is detrimental to Alaska refuge, then I introduce this land, talk about the history of this issue. What come next is the four sub-points of the issue itself, under influence of oil drilling there are 3 sub-points. At last, I will talk about the future of energy using in America, that is to develop renewable energies.

Lovins: It’s nice to meet you.

Loiter: It’s nice to meet you too.

I: Today we come to this harmonic café is to discuss the topic that should America ever agree the proposal of oil drilling in Alaska, Mr. Lovins, I have read about you article, and I could see that you are on the side which oppose this bill unhesitatingly, what makes you so confident and determined?

Lovins: As I have written in my article, the Alaska wildlife refuge, it might be the last totally intact natural preserve in America, and we believe that it is also among the last pure natural preserves in the world that hasn’t been contaminated at all, so this is the first point of its importance. Second, based on our massive amount of research data, the bio-environment here is very fragile, we also own a lot of precious animal species there, once this place being polluted, the result might be disastrous.

I: And also you mentioned in your article, that drilling oil there is very unprofitable, how could you dress this conclusion?

Lovins: My partner, Mr. Hunter Lovins, we have made researches and experiments on the oil drilling positions in Alaska,  then we found that although the oil storage in Alaska is not small number, it may be able to supply America for 10 years, that’s only guess, but the problem is, the position are not concentrated, they are distributed all over the huge land, so if any oil company wants to drill there, it might take it long as 10 years to reach profit, because it has to set up such a big drilling net! And the output would simultaneously be low, the cost is just too high!

I: And also, such a big drilling net would tremendously contaminate the environment, right?

Lovins: Absolutely! The words I said above, have been proved by the U.S. geological service. You can just take a look 60 miles west of Arctic, the Prudhoe Bay, a heavy oil industrial base, you can see how severe the bio-environment there is, then you can predict what the future of Arctic might be once this bill get passed, that’s why we must stand up and fight for it!

I: That’s very true, and what’s more, let us discuss this question on another aspect, that is would oil drilling in Alaska ever be able to shift America’s oil import dependence back to autarky? Mr. Jeffery Loiter?

Loiter: No, just as Mr. Lovins mentioned, oil drilling is very unprofitable there, and based on our research, even if a super oil company could be able to drill every land of Alaska and brings out huge profits, there is still no so many things it could do to change the present import situation of America. America is too dependent on energy, from industry to agriculture, everything needs energies, and most of them come through importing, the amount is just too enormous and gets even bigger every year!

I: So could you suggest that, what would be the best prospect of America’s energy situation?

Loiter: Of course developing renewable energies, such as nitrogen, solar power and tide energy, etc. Since 1994, the U.S. government has set up a scientific commission that specialized in new energy developing, and it takes a important role in the government’s new technological bill passing, we could see that America, not matter the government or the public, are concerning about this, about the future of the later generations and human beings.

I: The last question, what has America achieved so far in new energy developing field?

Loiter: The government is founding on the tide energy developing and paving the way for constructing some big tidal power plants along the costal areas. And also, as you can see, some big car manufacturers have successfully produced hybrid cars like SUVs and trucks using mixtures of clean energies and certain amount of oil, those are all big progresses.

I: That would be great, thank you again for coming.

These two gentlemen are truly concerned environment protectionists, they could be famous journalists, also could be prestigious authors or columnists. From this article, we could see that they are the kind of people that really care about America, and concern about this land, which might be the last pure intact natural preserve. They are confident, persuasive, good at render upon convincing reasons, and determined to protect the environment, they are really the people who devote themselves in protecting the country, and protect each land. On the other side, they are also critics and polemists, they dare to challenge those big companies or tycoons, no matter how powerful those companies or people might be, they would exert their utmost to defend the interest of the whole society.

2.  Loiter, Jeffrey M., and Vicki N. Bohm. “Technology policy and renewable energy: public roles in the development of new energy technologies.” Energy Policy 1999: 85-97. Web.

These two gentlemen are more like social analysts, who focuses on one social issue and keep probing in, they would be the kind of person that never give up. They also concern about the relationship between technology and human, how technology would influence the society. They are confident and determined, and could also be historians, who study the society for long, thus they could write strong point to convince people.

3. I think I am a caring person more than a scientific analyzing person like the two authors I mentioned above, I care about the social effects more than science itself. I am confident, but maybe my points would not be as strong and professional as theirs. I always concerned about things relate to the environment, society and culture, because those are significant to we human beings, just like the authors I analyzed. I think I am not so conservative and good at discovering new things and new scientific frontiers, and would accept new theories if they sound reasonable. And also, environmental protectionist, that is what I think of myself, because environmental sustainable development is vital to the whole world.  I care about my family and friends, if I have students, I would care about them too. Never give up on your faith, that is what I learned from the authors, we should be strong and determined and fight for the sake of the society.

4.    My audience would be the whole American citizens that care about the environment and I can fabricate a name from one of them, Jack. Jack should be a policy-caring and society-concerning people,  and really patriotic who devote himself in defending the interest of his motherland. He always read the latest news regarding the newest policies, and analyze whether those policies are good or harmful to the interest of the public and the country. As a citizen, he is passionate and dare to face any challenge, no matter how powerful his opponent might be. He makes up of a small part of the whole country’s foundation, and he will keep fighting for it. But also, he may be easily misled by the government’s propaganda, and see only one side of the truth itself, so to him, listen to different aspects of the thing is important, so the insights of the concerning scientists would be his best choices, but not the scientists work for the government.