
  
   25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
   25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

   25 -- I say part clearly articulated  
          
   25 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented


   &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
   Elizabeth Daskalakis

   Adding your "I say" to the analysis of Francis's statements makes
   for a very good final result.  The only criticism I have is that
   one sentence close to the start of the "I say" section:

   "I do not believe that this outlook is justified in any way but I 
   would argue that many other humans could justify this outlook."

   is easy to misinterpret because you are not being very clear
   what "this outlook" refers to.  You mean it to refer to the 
   "excessive anthropomorphism." But this sentence comes right after
   the opening of that paragraph where you are talking about 
   Francis's criticism of the "excessive anthropomorphism," not
   the "excessive anthropomorphism" itself.  So it took me a 
   while before I understood that you were not disagreeing with
   Francis.  It would have been better to spell out what the 
   "this outlook" refers to specifically.  

   Small things -- in last sentence of first paragraph and another place
                   at bottom of page 1, "human's" should be
                   " humans' "  (the plural possessive)


   25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
   25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

   24 -- I say part clearly articulated  
          
   24 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

   Paper 1 grade:  98/100

   &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

   Emily Maher

   It would have been more effective to save up your responses to each 
   point from the "they say" section and put them together in a separate
   section at the end of the paper.  That is, the overall organization
   should have been:

          Everything "they say", then everything "I say"

   rather than 
  
          One thing they say and my response, the next thing they say
          and my response, the next thing they say and my response, ... 
 
   The problem with your organization is that you are not really letting 
   Francis' point of view speak for itself the way it did before.  You are 
   interrupting in every paragraph to give your own point of view before 
   you let the full weight of his arguments sink in for the reader.  I know
   you were not trying to do this, but the net effect here is that you seem
   to be breaking into the conversation all the time rather than letting
   the other person have his say first(!)  This way you don't get
   the chance to put together a sustained argument of your own either.
   You're always switching back and forth between what Francis said and
   what you want to say.  

   There is also an important point here that I wish you had considered.  Namely,
   what happens if some sort of project is stopped from proceeding in line with 
   the precautionary principle, but it later turns out that doing it would NOT 
   have harmed the environment in any serious way?  In addition, (just to make 
   the question more interesting), suppose that not doing that project DID harm 
   people in some way.  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
   is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
   words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
   right" and also more controversial than you probably realize.

   25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
   22 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

   22 -- I say part clearly articulated  
          
   25 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented
   
   Paper 1 grade:  94/100

   &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

   Matthew Lane 

   The "I say" section has been integrated into the paper as a 
   whole very well, and I think you did a very good job here.
  
   Small points: 

   At bottom of page 1, "humanities" should be "humanity's" (singular 
   possessive) -- this was not corrected from first version

   Page 2, "because of the higher intellectual ability that God has created 
   humans with."  Better to avoid ending sentences with prepositions.  You
   could say "because God has created humans with higher intellectual ability."

   25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
   25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

   25 -- I say part clearly articulated  
          
   24 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented
   
   Paper 1 grade:  99/100
  
   &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

   Eve Smith

   It would have been fine to continue right after the end of the "They
   say" section and add your "I say" section without inserting another
   heading and beginning on a new page.  That's the way this sort of essay
   would usually be structured.  Your point that some of what Francis
   says might be unrealistic is probably well-taken, especially in countries
   like the U.S. where the power of the government to impose regulations is
   limited by the fact that legislators have to stand for reelection every
   two, or four, or six years.  I think you might have expanded on that
   point relative to the "precautionary principle" too, though.  The idea
   that humans should refrain from doing things if there is a chance that
   they could cause environmental damage (even if the damage has not been
   proved at the time) goes counter to the way we tend to do things.  But
   isn't Francis' real point that we don't have the time to do things the
   way we have in the past?  Aren't the problems we are facing too large
   and too pervasive throughout the world for "business as usual" to be a
   reasonable response?

   There is also an important point here that you might have considered.  Namely,
   what happens if some sort of project is stopped from proceeding in line with 
   the precautionary principle, but it later turns out that doing it would NOT 
   have harmed the environment in any serious way?  In addition, (just to make 
   the question more interesting), suppose that not doing that project DID harm 
   people in some way.  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
   is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
   words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
   right" and also more controversial than you probably realize.

   A small point:  On page 4,  "gives off the impression ... " does not
   need the "off"

   25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
   25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

   23 -- I say part clearly articulated and well-developed
          
   24 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

   Paper 1 grade: 97/100

   &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Angel Chavez

    I'm still not sure you understood the assignment very well. Go back and
    read the instructions posted on the course homepage again.  Your paper uses
    elements of both of the particular passages 1 and 2 I wanted you to choose 
    from but it does not really dig into either one of them in detail.  (Note
    that the "excessive anthropocentrism" idea is from passage 2 while 
    Francis' mention of the Rio Declaration comes from passage 1.)  
    
    You have added a few statements of personal opinion toward the end,
    but the point here was to come up with a more detailed response
    to what Francis was saying.

    Because you do focus on the Rio Declaration, I think you probably 
    thought of your essay as dealing with topic 1.  I think you do 
    understand Francis' main ideas there.  

    But you never discuss what Francis says about honesty and openness 
    in decision-making about environmental issues or the need to get 
    all "stake-holders" in on the development of policy.  You don't
    mention the idea that decisions should be made on the basis of 
    more than just whether a proposed action is legal.  
             
    The biggest issue here is that I don't think you really came to grips
    with the discussion of the "precautionary principle" from the Rio Declaration.
    Francis makes the centerpiece of the passage you were summarizing, so it
    deserves a more detailed treatment. That principle says that, to prevent
    environmental degradation, proposed projects should be rejected if there
    is even a reasonable chance they might cause harm.  In effect, the burden
    of proof is shifted to the proponents of the proposal -- they have to show
    that the project will definitely not cause harm in order for it to continue.

    There is an important point here that I wish you had considered.  Namely,
    what happens if some sort of project is stopped from proceeding in line with 
    the precautionary principle, but it later turns out that doing it would NOT 
    have harmed the environment in any serious way?  In addition, (just to make 
    the question more interesting), suppose that not doing that project DID harm 
    people in some way.  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you probably realize.

    Your writing is generally good.

    
    20 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    20 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    20 -- I say part clearly articulated  
          
    25 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  85/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Grace Peluso

    It's true that Francis says things like what you were discussing at the 
    bottom of page 1:

       ``This belief that humans have power over all has created a blockage, which 
       harms the possibility of positive development in society. This “excessive 
       anthropocentrism” (Laudato Si’ § 116) mindset stands in the way of our society 
       being able to promote and create a communal grasp and desire to build 
       relationships within the community.''

    However, the connection between "excessive anthropocentrism" and a 
    lack of connection within society is one that is pretty subtle.  It
    would have been good to say more about this because the relationship
    between these two things is not obvious.  (People could be selfish to
    the point of causing harm to other creatures, while still creating 
    solid and functional human communities, after all.)  
 
    In these sentences, there are a couple of questionable word choices too.
    The "blockage" in the first sentence is pretty specific, but in 
    what way are those beliefs a blockage?  What is being blocked?  Also 
    the "communal grasp" is not very clear.  I'm not sure what you meant
    there.

    Middle paragraph on page 2, say "Francis" rather than "he" -- it is not
    clear who "he" is here -- Prometheus, God, someone else?

    In your "I say" section -- does what you are saying apply to all people?
    to people in the developed world?  I don't think you can accuse everyone
    of wanting to make their lives "luxurious" when a pretty large proportion
    of the humans in the world are simply trying to figure out where their
    next meal is coming from.  You do mention that natural disasters such
    as the recent hurricanes affect less well-off people more not too 
    long after this, so there's a certain inconsistency here.   

    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    20 -- I say part clearly articulated  
          
    23 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  93/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Ryan Gifford

    "Pope Francis states that consumerism makes it simple to “rubber-stamp 
    authorizations” and “conceal information” (Page 136 §184)."  

    I'm pretty sure Francis is not blaming "consumerism" directly for that.  
    I think he's saying that sort of behavior is tied to the desire to profit
    economically from exploiting the environment. Companies want to make money, 
    so they cut corners and conceal information to make sure their projects
    are approved.  In fact, you could say consumerism is a by-product of that 
    over-reliance on the profit motive as well--through advertising and other 
    opinion-forming methods, companies create a desire for the goods they produce 
    and encourage people to identify themselves only as "consumers."

    What you are saying about the "precautionary principle" is generally 
    very good now.  However, you introduce that term in the top paragraph
    on page 2 before you discuss specifically what it means -- the idea 
    that indisputable proof should not be required to halt activities that 
    might be harming the environment.  I think you could have "saved" the
    first mention of the term for the paragraph where you discuss it in 
    detail.  

    There is also an important point here that I wish you had considered.  Namely,
    what happens if some sort of project is stopped from proceeding in line with 
    the precautionary principle, but it later turns out that doing it would NOT 
    have harmed the environment in any serious way?  In addition, (just to make 
    the question more interesting), suppose that not doing that project DID harm 
    people in some way.  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you probably realize.

    At top of page 3:  ''The emphasis on politics and the economy in today’s 
    society push is to continue living our unsustainable lifestyles."  Did you 
    mean "push *us* to continue living ... "(?)  If not, what did you mean?

    Unfortunately, I agree that we will need to "fix" problems we have already
    caused in addition to thinking about how to prevent causing new ones.
    That's a sobering thought.  

    Small points: 

    Didn't mention this before, but "wellbeing" is usually hyphenated: "well-being,"
    although the other form is acceptable too.  

    "In §183 Pope Francis centers his claims around putting the power of decision 
    making for the environmental projects in the hands of those it affects, ... "
    What is the "it" here? What does it refer to?

    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    23 -- I say part clearly articulated (although you could have said more)  
          
    24 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  97/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Lily Droesch

    The phrase "help the environment" appears *three times* within a few sentences
    in your opening paragraph(!)  That phrase is VERY general (and very overused, 
    not to say trite).  It would have been better to omit it and be more specific
    -- something like this would have been a more effective way to start:
    
     Pope Francis' 2015 encyclical letter, Laudato Si’, addresses the ways humans and 
     technology are affecting the environment.  However, throughout the letter, Francis 
     also refers to solutions as well as problems.  He mentions in particular an important
     idea known as the ``precautionary principle'' from the Rio Declaration, a 
     document developed at a United Nations meeting in 1992.

    Note the way this sets up the idea that Francis is considering what our 
    environmental problems are *and* how he thinks we should be changing the ways
    we do things to address those problems.  That would lead naturally into the 
    rest of the paper.   

    What you say on page 2 about the precautionary principle is much better.  But
    note that Francis is actually quoting from the Rio Declaration at that point
    so you probably don't want to attribute the statement to him.  

    There is also an important point here that I wish you had considered.  Namely,
    what happens if some sort of project is stopped from proceeding in line with 
    the precautionary principle, but it later turns out that doing it would NOT 
    have harmed the environment in any serious way?  In addition, (just to make 
    the question more interesting), suppose that not doing that project DID harm 
    people in some way.  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you probably realize.  

    In reading this, I felt like you were always straining to find something to
    say and that led to a lot of repetitiveness (as in the first paragraph and
    later in several places).  Figuring out what it is you want to say should be
    the first step in writing.
    
    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    20 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    18 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  88/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


    Madison Ward 

    The first paragraph still doesn't do a very good job of getting things 
    started here.  If you think about this passage, you can see that (after his
    discussions of the environmental problems and challenges we face at present),
    this particular section of Laudato Si' is starting to consider potential
    solutions.  So something like this would be a more effective opening:

       Pope Francis' encyclical letter Laudato Si’ on the environment and 
       human ecology condemns some of the actions of our human race; as he says, we
       have caused great damage to the world.  However, Francis also discusses 
       possible solutions.  He mentions in particular an important idea known 
       as the ``precautionary principle'' from the 1992 Rio Declaration.

    Note the way I was trying bring out the idea that Francis is suggesting
    ways we might address the problems as well as condemning humans for creating
    the problems.  

    In the second paragraph -- "Francis states on page 135 in Laudato Si’ that we
    must stop thinking in favor of the policies that are “developed and debated by 
    all interested parties.”  I think you misunderstood what he was saying a bit. 
    The issue isn't just that different countries' interests should be respected.
    Francis definitely DOES believe that all interested parties should be involved
    in decision-making. That might seem to be a recipe for gridlock and a guarantee
    that nothing ever gets done.  But he's arguing that the interests of the potential
    victims of environmental damages must be taken into account too, not just the
    interests of the corporations who stand to make profits from actions that affect
    the environment.  If the potential victims are heard too and they have a voice
    in decision-making, then it would be harder to go ahead with projects that will
    harm them.  For instance, maybe progress on greenhouse gas levels would be possible 
    if the people who are directly affected by rises in sea level and floods are heard 
    when we debate how and whether to find alternatives to continuing to burn fossil 
    fuels for transportation and electric power generation.  You say this pretty
    clearly later on, on page 2.  
    
    There is also an important point here that I wish you had considered.  Namely,
    what happens if some sort of project is stopped from proceeding in line with 
    the precautionary principle, but it later turns out that doing it would NOT 
    have harmed the environment in any serious way?  In addition, (just to make 
    the question more interesting), suppose that not doing that project DID harm 
    people in some way.  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you probably realize.

    A few small points about word choices:

    Top of page 3: "not enough want from humans to change the planet"  
    sounds strange -- did you mean that people don't have enough desire to 
    make changes ("want" = "desire")?

    Middle of page 3:  "It is not working to negotiate among counties ... "
    Didn't you mean "countries" (?)

    Later on page 3:  " should be apart of ... "  I think you meant "should be a part 
    of ..."
 
    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    23 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    23 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    23 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  94/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Genevieve Gibbons


    The biggest issue here is still that I don't think you really came to grips
    with the discussion of the "precautionary principle" from the Rio Declaration.
    Francis makes the centerpiece of the passage you were summarizing, so it
    deserves a (much!) more detailed treatment. That precautionary principle 
    says that to prevent environmental degradation, proposed projects for
    building new factories, pipelines, etc. should be rejected if there
    is even a reasonable chance they might cause environmental harm.  In 
    effect, the burden of proof is shifted to the proponents of the 
    proposal -- they have to show that the project will definitely not 
    cause harm in order for it to continue.  This is a lot of the rationale 
    behind Environmental Impact Studies, etc.  This part of what you say is 
    just not detailed enough.

    There is also an important point here that I wish you had considered.  Namely,
    what happens if some sort of project is stopped from proceeding in line with 
    the precautionary principle, but it later turns out that doing it would NOT 
    have harmed the environment in any serious way?  In addition, (just to make 
    the question more interesting), suppose that not doing that project DID harm 
    people in some way.  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you probably realize.

    Some of the things you say in this version are quite cynical-sounding.
    Do you really believe that "Big companies just want to make a quick buck and 
    Government couldn’t care less about other and what consequences come from their 
    laws and plans"?  That's pretty harsh.  Also, "Government" shouldn't be 
    capitalized if you are referring to government in general.  Did you 
    mean "couldn't care less about others"?  (not "other")

    This version is better as far as the writing goes, but we still need to
    work on getting your ideas on "paper" in a more eloquent way.  

    Smaller things:

    end of first paragraph:  "doge" should be "dodge"

    last paragraph:  Say "Pope Francis and I" not "Me and Pope Francis"
   
    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    20 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    20 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    20 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  85/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Christian Boire

    There is an important point here that you might want to consider as you think
    about environmental questions.  Namely, what happens if some sort of project is 
    stopped from proceeding in line with the precautionary principle, but it later 
    turns out that doing it would NOT have harmed the environment in any serious way?  
    In addition, (just to make the question more interesting), suppose that not doing 
    that project DID harm people in some way (say by reducing opportunities for them
    to make a decent living wage).  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you apparently think.  That's not
    to say it's totally wrong either, of course -- it's just a much "grayer area" than 
    your point of view seems to acknowledge.  

    Your writing is generally good here, but there are places where you say things 
    in "wordy" ways.  For instance, the sentence at the start of your "I say" section:
    "In regards to Francis’ statement about not using “interventions” to save the environment,
    I certainly agree with him that they are no longer an option that society can choose."
    would be much more forceful if you cut the "In regards to .. " and came right out 
    saying something like "I certainly agree with Francis' statement that ``interventions''
    in the environment are no longer an option that society can choose."

    Smaller things:

    In the first sentence, you don't need the "words taken from his" (it's redundant)
    if you say "Pope Francis' encyclical letter"

    Bottom of first page:  "usual checkups" sounds a bit strange.  Did you mean 
    "regular monitoring"?

    Bottom of page 2:  "governmental law" is sort of redundant.  You might need a 
    modifying adjective if you were talking about some other sorts of law (natural laws,
    church law, etc.)


    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    22 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    21 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  93/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Joe Lang

    You are generally more favorably disposed to technology than Francis
    seems to be in Laudato Si'.  As always, though, the question becomes:
    How do we ensure that technology is used in the interests of humanity
    as a whole rather than only as a way to produce profits?  

    Your point that human population growth has also created large problems
    is true to an extent, but note that those effects are very uneven
    around the world.  Some areas are extremely overpopulated, while others
    (such as most of the U.S.) are not as severely affected.   

    There is an important point here that you might want to consider as you think
    about environmental questions and what Francis says about the ``precautionary
    principle'' from the Rio Declaration.  Namely, what happens if some sort of project is 
    stopped from proceeding in line with the precautionary principle, but it later 
    turns out that doing it would NOT have harmed the environment in any serious way?  
    In addition, (just to make the question more interesting), suppose that not doing 
    that project DID harm people in some way (say by reducing opportunities for them
    to make a decent living wage).  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you apparently think.  That's not
    to say it's totally wrong either, of course -- it's just a much "grayer area" than 
    your point of view seems to acknowledge.   

    There are a few corrections I suggested from the first iteration that did 
    make it into this revision. For instance,  

    Second sentence:  Laudato Si' has been issued in booklet form, but
    it's technically an encyclical letter, not a "book."

    At bottom of page 1:  "There should be a factor that if the project 
    is skeptical that there should be no question that it is nullified 
    or postponed."   Word choices: "factor" is vague--not sure what you 
    meant.  Also, the word "skeptical" is not what you want here (a person 
    is skeptical when they doubt something; a project cannot be skeptical).  
    I think you meant "questionable" or "doubtful," but questionable in
    what way?  See the comment above about the precautionary principle.

    A smaller thing:

    At bottom of page 3 -- "may have a negative economic label"  I'm not sure that 
    "label" is the word you want there.  Maybe "impact"?

    
    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    22 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    21 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  93/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
    
    Logan Milliken

    Apart from the comments below you did a good job here of presenting what Francis
    says and a response that almost entirely agrees with his "take" on these
    issues. 

    There is an important point here that you might want to consider as you think
    about environmental questions and what Francis says about the ``precautionary
    principle'' from the Rio Declaration.  Namely, what happens if some sort of project is 
    stopped from proceeding in line with the precautionary principle, but it later 
    turns out that doing it would NOT have harmed the environment in any serious way?  
    In addition, (just to make the question more interesting), suppose that not doing 
    that project DID harm people in some way (say by reducing opportunities for them
    to make a decent living wage).  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially less "obviously
    right" and also more controversial than you apparently think.  That's not
    to say it's totally wrong either, of course -- it's just a much "grayer area" 
    than your point of view seems to acknowledge. 
    
    Some minor word choice and other technical comments:

    First sentence:  "change to" doesn't sound right -- maybe "changes to" or "change in"

    Next sentence:  "outbalance" is a word, but it's a verb.  You're using it as a noun.
    I think you probably meant something more like "imbalance" -- the state of being
    out of balance.

    Bottom of page 1:  "unbiasedly" is awkward -- "in an unbiased manner" would be 
    better (even though it's more wordy)  

    Page 2:  "Precautionary principle" not "principal" -- I remember this one by 
    thinking "principle -- rule" (both ending in -le)

    Page 3:  "bad an eye" should be "bat an eye"  (hard to catch!)

    Page 3:  Don't capitalize "tiger" if you are just naming the animal.

    Page 3:  "... all of the earths creatures ... " -- need an apostrophe:  earth's
    
    Near bottom of page 3:  " ... does not mean we have the right too."  "too" is the
    wrong word there -- you mean "to"

    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    25 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    20 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  95/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Najee Quashie

    As a general rule, if you want to convince someone of something they might not
    be inclined to agree with at the start of the conversation, then "lecturing" them 
    the way you do with your "little history lesson" on the checks and balances built
    into the U.S. government under our Constitution is probably not the ideal way to 
    proceed.  Besides, I believe Francis (or someone who agreed with his point of view
    more closely) would respond by saying something like "Yes, that is all true, but 
    the scale of the problems we are facing at this point in history means we have to 
    think about doing things in different ways than we have in the past.  Those previous
    ways of doing things have, in fact, contributed to the problems."

    This version of the "They say" section does a much better job of presenting 
    Francis' views from the passage in Laudato Si' than your first version.  
    There is another important point here that you might want to consider as you think
    about environmental questions and what Francis says about the ``precautionary
    principle'' from the Rio Declaration.  

    I think a better way to argue that what Francis is saying omits something important 
    (if you wanted to do that) might be this:  What happens if some sort of project is 
    stopped from proceeding in line with the precautionary principle, but it later 
    turns out that doing it would NOT have harmed the environment in any serious way?  
    In addition, (just to make the question more interesting), suppose that not doing 
    that project DID harm people in some way (say by reducing opportunities for them
    to make a decent living wage).  Is it so clear-cut that the precautionary principle
    is the right test to use to decide whether to go ahead with the project? In other
    words, I think the precautionary principle is potentially even more controversial 
    than you apparently think it is.  That's not to say it's totally wrong either, of 
    course -- it's just a very "gray area."  

    First sentence -- the "simply to say not so" doesn't really work with the rest of the 
    sentence.  It seems you want that to refer to the "unlimited ever-evolving" environment.
    But then I have a question about why you said "ever-evolving."  Isn't the real 
    issue that some people tend to see the environment as something that IS NOT changing, 
    or at least not changing as a result of human actions?  Some "climate change deniers,"
    in fact, argue this way, saying:  "Weather is always changing. There have been strong 
    hurricanes in the past too; there have always been hotter years and cooler years in the 
    historical record, etc."   So (they would say), "how can you say that increasing greenhouse 
    gasses in the atmosphere are causing changes in the global climate?  Aren't things
    the same as in the past?"   

    Some smaller points:

    At the top of page 2, "Especially in poor countries where tragedies as such are more 
    common than not"  is not a complete sentence. You could add something like this:
    "This is true especially in poor countries where tragedies as such are more common 
    than not."  But even then, is it really true that "tragedies ... are more common than 
    not?" 

    Page 2:  "In Pope Francis’ papal encyclical letter Laudato Si’, he truly advises against 
    taking the wait-and-see approach in terms of decision-making and how long policies actually
    make it out of the discussion room."  This is an awkward sentence because the first
    part and the last part don't really work together.   It's also wordy because you are
    repeating reference to the name of the document.  You could tighten this up and
    split the two parts of the sentence something like this:

    "Pope Francis advises against taking a wait-and-see approach to decision making.  (NOTE: 
    I removed the "in terms of" which is wordy and unnecessary).  This is partly because
    policies can take a long time to make it out of the discussion room."

    Bottom of page 3:   "it is hard pressed not to keep what he says in the back of your mind"
    What is "it"?  Do you mean "One is hard pressed ... "?  (That is, did you want to say
    that what he said stuck in your mind even though you did not want it to?)

    
    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    23 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    23 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    20 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  91/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Connor Degenhardt

    Your "I say" addition to this essay and the revisions to the "they say" section
    have improved the overall quality a great deal over the first version.  I especially 
    like the subtle way you argue that "dominion" is not necessarily incompatible
    with "stewardship."  Good work there!  Of course, Francis is using the word 
    "dominion" the way that he thinks people have misunderstood that term in the Genesis
    passage we talked about.  So I am pretty sure that he would agree with
    you that humans *can* have "dominion" in some senses while also treating
    the rest of the natural world in such a way that they are acting as its stewards.
    It all comes down to how the dominion is used and how humans think of their
    power over the other inhabitants of the the earth.   

    The connection Francis draws between "excessive anthropocentrism" and a 
    lack of "collective understanding" and connection within society is pretty 
    subtle.  It would have been good to say more about this because the relationship
    between these two things is not all that obvious.  (People could be selfish to
    the point of causing harm to other creatures, while still creating solid and 
    functional human communities, after all.)  

    In your discussion of Francis' comments about the "Promethean vision of mastery 
    over the world,"  I don't believe that he is saying society has been "afraid to 
    assist the natural world" so much as that some people have not wanted to look weak and 
    sentimental by advocating for the environment.  (Think of the way some people tend
    to put down "tree-huggers!")  

    Smaller points:
   
    The first sentence is still kind of a slow start to what you want to say.  
    You can take it for granted that your reader knows Francis published the 
    Laudato Si' letter.  
   
    Near top of page 2:  "This highlights misreadings of Christian anthropology, 
    humans tendency to step away from the Gods because they feel as if they can rule 
    better" -- Careful -- You are mixing two things together here.  The Prometheus 
    story doesn't connect directly with "Christian anthropology" and seeing that
    together with a reference to "the Gods" seems a bit odd.  Also,  
    "humans tendency" should be "humans' tendency" (plural possessive)
    (Finally, don't overuse phrases like "God-like control.")
    
    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    23 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    25 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    22 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  95/100

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Andrew Sisitzky
 
    Good job adding the "I say" section and raising the question whether Francis'
    attempt to draw a connection between interpretation of Christian scripture 
    and attitudes about the environment is really valid, given that the world
    is religiously diverse.  I think he would respond that, at least until the
    last 20 years or so, the most economically developed parts of the world 
    have been in Western Europe and former colonies of European countries 
    (including the U.S.) and the influence of Christianity has been strongest
    exactly in those areas.  Those are also the areas where the tendency to 
    exploit the environment without regard for the non-human inhabitants of the
    earth has been the strongest.  

    A bit later: I don't think "christcentric" is a generally-accepted word.  You could 
    say "Christ-centric," but I think it would be even better to expand that 
    significantly and explain exactly what you mean. You do something like that 
    in the later paragraphs and you say you think Francis' ideas are possibly too 
    specifically tied to points of Christian scripture and hence don't apply 
    directly to the majority of humans who are not Christians, or not religious 
    at all.  That is a very good observation and definitely a possible criticism
    of Laudato Si' as a whole.   But it's not the kind of thing you can sum up
    easily with a single word and I think it would be better to "save" that idea
    until the point in the essay where you can will discuss it full.  In other words,  
    trying to "get it on the table" at this point seems to be premature.  
    
    Some smaller points:

    At the start of your "I say" section, "it’s" should be "its"

    From that later section:  The sentence "As a non-Christian, this statement even 
    had the ability resonate with me and I believe it could have a similar effect on 
    others all around the world."  With this sentence structure, the phrase "as a 
    non-Christian" should modify the subject ("this statement").  However, it 
    is really modifying "me" later on (I think), so this should be rearranged something
    like this:  "This statement even resonated with me as a non-Christian and I believe
    it could have a similar effect on others all around the world."  Note that I 
    deleted the "had the ability to" -- I think you're saying the statement *did 
    resonate* with you, not just that it had the ability to do so(!)  
    
    25 -- Understood assignment and followed instructions
    
    25 -- Presented Francis' point of view accurately and
          completely

    24 -- I say part clearly articulated
          
    23 -- Writing technically correct and well-presented

    Paper 1 grade:  97/100
    

    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    Kyle Copeland

    A lot of the revisions to the "they say" section here addressed the comments I 
    had before well.    
  
    You have a lot of interesting things to say, but some aspects of your writing don't 
    always let you get what you want to say down on paper in an intelligible form.  For instance,
    it is hard for me to make sense of your first sentence:  "While first assessing Pope Francis’s 
    Laudato Si’, Francis himself interprets many aspects of Modernity and social strengthening."
    With this structure, the first phrase, "While first assessing Pope Francis’s 
    Laudato Si’" should refer to the subject ("Francis").  But that doesn't really
    fit.  What were you trying to say?  Are *you* the one assessing Laudato Si'?  
    Then you should become the subject of the sentence.    

    At the bottom of page 1:  "This simply implied that the way our humanity treated 
    nature was 'something that only faint-hearted care about,' and this is what Francis meant
    by 'excessive anthropocentrism.'"  Not exactly.  The next sentence is a pretty clear
    explanation of what "anthropocentrism" is (although you probably want an "or" 
    between "concept" and "belief").  I would say treating nature as
    "something that only THE faint-hearted care about" is a side-effect.  If you think
    humans are the only things in the universe that matter ("excessive anthropocentrism"), 
    then it's easy to dismiss "tree-huggers" as weak and sentimental (the "faint-hearted").  

    I agree with you that the connection Francis draws between "excessive anthropocentrism" 
    and a lack of "collective understanding" and connection within society is not that 
    clear.  If he had said "excessive individualism," then I could see it a lot more clearly.  
    People could be selfish to the point of causing harm to other creatures, while still 
    creating solid and functional human communities, after all.

    But the part of the "I say" section where you say you disagree with Francis'
    connection between a misinterpretation of Christian scripture and the "Promethean
    vision of dominance over the world is again pretty unclear.  I can't tell what 
    you are trying to say there.   When you say that Francis' statements are 
    biasED (not "bias"), I think you are trying to point out that the world
    is religiously diverse and the influence of something in the Christian bible
    is questionable because so many people in the world are not Christian, or 
    even necessarily religious. 
 
    I think Francis might respond that, at least until the last 20 years or so, the 
    most economically developed parts of the world have been in Western Europe and 
    former colonies of European countries (including the U.S.) and the influence of 
    Christianity has been strongest exactly in those areas.  Those are also the areas 
    where the tendency to exploit the environment without regard for the non-human 
    inhabitants of the earth has been the strongest.  Did you think about that
    aspect?

    Understood assignment and followed instructions  -- 25/25
    
    Presented Francis' point of view accurately and --  22/25
    completely

    I say part clearly articulated --                   20/25
          
    Writing technically correct and well-presented --   20/25

    Paper 1 grade: 87

    
    
    
    
    
    
