MY PORTFOLIO
MARIO FRANCISCO FLOR PEÑAFIEL
YACHAY TECH UNIVERSITY ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROGRAM YACHAY, ECUADOR
My Portfolio MARIO FLOR PEÑAFIEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROGRAM YACHAY TECH UNIVERSITY LEVEL 6-016 TEACHER: HAMILTON QUEZADA JULY 25, 2016 IMBABURA, ECUADOR
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PORTFOLIO LETTER 2. RESPONSE ESSAY 3. LITERARY ANALYSIS 4. INTERPRETATION ESSAY 5. ARGUMENTATION ESSAY
6. FINAL RESEARCH PROJECT ESSAY 7. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS (PICTURES/ VIDEOS/OTHER WORKS)
8. THANK YOU LETTER
Dear Portfolio Reader:
Welcome to my portfolio. My name is Mario; I am a student of Yachay Tech, and with this portfolio, I am ready to finish the English language program in Yachay. Firstly I want to say thank you for reading this work. It is very significant to me that you can spend some of your time to see how my English has improved on this final course of English at Yachay Tech. I came to this university believing that my English skills were good enough to face life but I felt very childish when I realized how wrong I was. I used to see English just as a way to understand video games and have fun talking with people from other countries. Thanks to level 6, now I know how to make many academic papers that will be worth for my future. Some of this papers are going to be shown here, in my portfolio. You will see my response essay, my literary analysis, my interpretation essay, where I talked about "Another brick in the wall." Also, you can read my argumentative essay where I discussed why there should exist only one language. Finally, you will find my research paper about nuclear bombs and why they should not exist. As a student of Yachay Tech, my purpose is to become a scientist. That is why I will have to write lots of scientific papers in my life, and that is exactly what level 6 and level 5 taught me. In fact, before coming to Yachay, I hated the idea of writing an essay. If an essay in Spanish terrified me, imagine how an English essay was for me. Procrastinating was my favorite hobby. Now I try to make my outline sooner possible to think about new ideas throughout the day and add them to my paper. Anyway, level 6 has opened me lots of new doors, and I want to thank my professor more than anything. With his help, my rejection to essays is not present anymore because he taught me that making an essay part by part, will make my work easier and more efficient. It Will not be so exhausting and disorganized as if I did it with an anticipation of two days. Here
you will see my progress on writing. I believe that I will use what level 6 has taught me as a tool for my future scientist life. Without any else to say, enjoy my portfolio and thank you, again.
RESPONSE ESSAY
HELPING OTHERS FOR OWN BENEFIT Mario Flor P. Yachay Tech University
Does a human being help others without a personal motive? This is the topic of Andre and Velasquez’s paper. (Andre & Velasquez, 2015). Most people would say that there are situations where they can act for other’s interests. But, the reality is not so pretty. So you may ask: Where is ethics? In this response essay, you will learn a new point of view about ethics and moral. "Even at our best we are out for ourselves" is the phrase that the article mentions not only at the beginning but also at the end. In the article, an important part of human being is mentioned, the ethics. The author gives many reasons and evidence that shows why people act just for themselves, but those ideas may not be very convincing. Many other reasons are not mentioned, and they are very important to take into account
Andre and Velasquez (The authors) give an example of why a person would help men who need help. In their paper is explained how scientists affirm that people would say that they help because they want to reduce man’s distress but it would not be true. People feel empathy and experience almost the same distress the other person feels, so they help just by reducing their distress. I think this argument is a really good and real theory. No one can say that when a person is suffering, they do not feel themselves in that situation. That is a human characteristic. For that reason we want to help other people, we do it because we would like that another person helps us if we were in that situation. Where is the moral then? The authors talk about ethics and moral; they say that we cannot talk about ethics if human beings just act for themselves because ethic and moral is feeling the obligation of doing something even if it is not in our self-interest. On the contrary, it is exactly what moral is, an obligation, a “moral obligation.” Moral, in fact, is empathy, is feeling yourself in that situation. If you do not help that person, then you will think that there will be a person that will not help you. You cannot have a peaceful life with that idea in your head. You prefer to help that person before living with the fair that you won't be helped. To conclude, you can explain what people knows as “ethics” with this theory that people act for themselves, even if people doesn't want to accept this.
Furthermore, Andre and Velasquez just use this example to support their thesis but, many people would not accept to be convinced. There are many other reasons that a reader should take into account to explore and open more their minds. When you help someone, you do not know him. Maybe it can be someone very important, a millionaire that will reward you, or maybe it can be the person who will be by your side for the rest of your life. Maybe it can be your future mother or father in law. Or it can be just a good story you can tell people by the way they like you more. Maybe you are saying that you do not think about all of that when you help someone, but your brain does it in just a second. Your brain does not always think about the advantages of helping another person. It also think about the disadvantages when you do not help someone. You also think unconscienced that if you do not help someone, then something bad will happen to you. Maybe the person who you did not help will act as and revenge way. Or that person is your future boss, and he/she remembers you as the person who you did not help. Or, without going so far, when a person sees or hears that you didn’t do something at respect, that person will not like you anymore. A specific example of a fact that can influence your decision can be your religion or believing. If you help others, then you will go to heaven. If not, then you will go to hell. Another good example: Imagine there is the person you hate who needs help. If you decide no helping that person, then you will get your revenge. If you decide to help, that person is because you will win something bigger than your revenge. Your decision depends on what is more convenient for you: your revenge or the advantages of helping that person. To sum up, there are lots of reasons and theories that support the thesis of Andre and Velasquez. The feeling of distress is not the only subconscious reason why a person would act; other reasons make a person act, even if those are advantages that may be gained when you do it or disadvantages that you will suffer if you do not do it. We live in a society were helping makes you right and do not help makes you a terrible person so we feel the “moral obligation” of helping.
LITERARY ANALYSIS ESSAY
Literary analysis of “The Story of an Hour” Mario Flor P. Yachay Tech Unversity
In the reading “The Story of an Hour” a housewife heard the new that her husband had an accident and he is dead. Her life is confined to her house. After her sad moment, she realizes that her life will be better. She will be free as she has always wanted. In the reading, the limited setting is used in a not direct way, so the principal theme “freedom” is appreciated. Mrs. Mallard, being a housewife, is confined to be at home. Her life makes her appreciate the freedom in a bigger way than another person would do. When her husband is back her freedom and her life were gone away. The story, published in 1894, presents a view of marriage of 1894. In that age, the woman would keep in their houses while their husband was outside working or being in other activities. The woman didn’t have permission to go outside, so their freedom was taken away. Mrs. Mallard, the housewife of the reading, lives that reality. A reader does not know that until Mrs. Mallard begins to feel happiness for her freedom, not even the devastating notice that her husband is dead is as big as her desires of being free. When her husband was back, she was already in the clouds, and she fell to the floor. Her “heart trouble” did not react with the loss of her husband. It reacted with the loss of her ephemeral freedom. Her soul wanted her new “giant world” and did not want to go back again to that small house. Mrs. Mallard´s desire of being free was bigger than her desire of being with her husband alive. She thought that her life as a housewife was over. The new that it was not true was even worse than the new that her husband was dead. That is why when she lost her freedom, she also lost her life. There is a saying that says “Cut my hand but don´t cut my wings.” Freedom is the bigger desire of human being.
Reference: Chopin, K. (1894). “The Story of an Hour”.
INTERPRETATION ESSAY
Interpretation of Another Brick in the Wall Part 2 by Pink Floyd. Flor Mario, Lรณpez Melany, Salazar Samantha Yachay Tech University
INTERPRETATION OF ANOTHER BRICK IN THE WALL PART 2 BY PINK FLOYD. “Another Brick in the Wall Part. 2” expresses the feelings of children towards school and education system. The video shows a dark sarcasm of some teachers in the classroom and how the school was at that age. The students follow only one direction that the school imposes to make them a group without freedom. As an effect of that, children rebel against the school, by breaking rules they were imposed and then burning it. The present interpretation attempts to analyze each part aforementioned of the musical video “Another Brick in the Wall part. 2” In the video, there is a kid in a school that looks like a boarding school. It is a traditional school of that time. Like students, teachers also wear uniforms. At that time, the rules of schools were very hard and strict. Professors could do whatever they want. In the video, a teacher sees that a child is writing a poem and he laughs in front of everyone showing the dark sarcasm of the teacher, who has that has no respect. Professors could even hit children, and children could no protest or say anything. Roger Waters, the writer of the song, was apparently grown in the 70´s and he probably went to a boarding school. It looks like he hated his teachers, they probably hit him. The video is a protest against education where teachers were more interested in cultivating the discipline than transmitting their knowledge. The professor sees the students as just “another brick in the wall.” A teacher does not let the student, the kid (called Pink) that was writing the poem, express his ideas in a freeway, leaving him in ridicule in a way that he would not want to write a poem again. The students can just follow the rules that were imposed. For them to not say anything, they are treated as just objects in a factory.
The school was a place where students can not express their ideas; they just have to follow orders from their professors. Students follow only one direction that the
school imposes to make them a group without freedom. The main problem of the system education of that decade was that the teachers were closed minded: all the things that teachers said should be fulfilled just as in a factory. The video shows a kind of factory where all the students start marching in the same rhythm and direction. After that, students are wearing masks and are sitting on desks. Finally, in the processing of students, all the students have the same clothes, marching in the same way, and using the same masks. Now, no differences can be made between each other. All of them were processed according to the system of education. After all the process, children are converted into sausages to illustrate how the government sees children: as something that can be manipulated and used to increase the economy of the country. It’s similar to the process in a factory: the products start as different materials, and after some process, they look the same. Once the product is ready, it is sold to increase the economy of the owner of the company. Another fact that the video presents is a big clock that expresses the rules of meeting stipulated schedules. A part of the song said, “No thought control” because the school prepared them to be the same, taking away their free expression. The system of education that the video shows tried children as objects. While the scenes of the children marching through the factory-school are taking place, children's behavior starts to change. A rebellion begins.
Teachers were more interested in keeping the order between students than teaching them. As a consequence of that, children begin to break the order, and they removed themselves the masks imposed by the school. They go to the classrooms, break each desk, chair, and book that they found, and they destroy the walls of bricks of the school. Finally, they burn the whole school, creating a bonfire, screaming “We don’t need no education” and running away from school. Obviously, it is only a creative idea of the Pink’s mind. This part of the video shows two significant outcomes. The first is how the
children are transported by a band to be crushed and transformed in sausages, but the children rebelled and broke the order. Its meaning is that children are tired of following a specific and boring pattern created by a rustic educational system. And the second is the chorus part where children sing after burning the school and making a bonfire: “We don’t need no education.” This sentence is grammatically incorrect. It's a double negative and means "We need education."(Songfacts, 2016). This fact causes a certain degree of irony because the video shows us the children breaking desks, chairs, books and a building where they receive their education. But, if it is analyzed profoundly, the children mean: don't receive “no education.” This means that children don't want to learn and live with violence. They want respect for their skills and freedom to grow without any problem. “The whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance. And the consequence is that many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not, because the thing they were good at school wasn't valued, or was stigmatized. And I believe that we can't afford to go on that way” (Robinson, K., 2006). The song is meant to be a rebellion against the errant government, against people who have power in the educational system over vulnerable people. Without a doubt, this will be a hymn remembered by many people. In conclusion, the video wants to transmit us three main ideas. How wrong was the 70´s scholar system with teachers that had no limits. The similarities between a factory and a school; both just see objects and products. And finally, how a suppressed group can rebel sooner or later if the system does not work.
REFERENCES
Another Brick In The Wall (part II) by Pink Floyd Songfacts. (2016). Songfacts.com. Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1696
Robinson, K. (2006, February). Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity? {Video file}. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_ schools_kill_ creativity? language=en
Another Brick In The Wall, p. (2016). Another Brick In The Wall, part 2 | The Wall Analysis. Thewallanalysis.com. Retrieved 13 November 2016, from http://www.thewallanalysis.com/another-brick-in-the-wall-part-2/
Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2. (2016). YouTube. Retrieved 11 November 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDl6iuku_mw
ARGUMENTATION ESSAY
Argumentative Essay Mario Flor P. Yachay Tech University
Right now, there are hundreds of different languages on earth. This situation causes many problems around the worlds by being a limitation for every person. What if there exist only one global language? There would be an exponential grown in many aspects. The implementation of a universal language is the next step for a world that each time is “smaller” and an advantage for us, people who want to learn more. These are just some examples about why there should exist a global language. Did you know that the world was bigger before than now? For our grandparents, it was very hard to travel to any other country. Traveling was much more expensive and much more dangerous. Different languages was not a big problem in the past. But now, traveling around the world is not a big problem. Even without getting out of your room you can “visit” other countries from your computer. You can talk to people from all around the world. You can read books, stories, worksheets from people that live at another side of the worlds. Maybe you could fall in love with a person from a country that is very far away Everything just from your house if you have a computer and internet connection. Unfortunately, there exist one big limitation for this little world. Different languages limit us. It does not let us be free to communicate with our world. It does not only limit us to now how our world is; it also limits our brain to learn all the things that it can learn. Have you ever wanted to read a book but then you discover that it is written in another language that you do not know? It does not only happen to you. Every day around the world, science is being developed and is our job to continue developing it. But what happens when you want to learn something, and the way to do it is reading a book that is written in another language. Not only scientists but all humanity also need to share information and we all deserve to catch that information. That is how we all are going to
have an exponential growth in science as humans. Some people do not see the idea od having a global language in this way. Many people would believe that the lack of language is a lack of culture. They say that we should preserve our roots. In the past, the “big world” that we used to have obligated us to create languages. We are not part of that world anymore. We are getting better every day. Success needs changes. Our next big step for success is changing the “multilanguage” system. It does not mean that old language need to disappear. In Ecuador, many people exist that talk Kichua. The native culture has not been eliminated, and the official language in Ecuador is Spanish. Everyone knows that the fact that Spanish is being spoken in Ecuador is the best for this country. There are each time fewer languages on earth every year (Cancio, 2016). A global language is the future of humanity. To sum up, if humanity wants to grow, we need a global language. Wee need it in this “small world, ” and that is toe core to the knowledge. Cultures and old languages do not need to disappear. The changing of languages has always existed, and this changing have to get things easier.
References
Cancio, C. (2016). What if everyone on Earth spoke the same language? - Science. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/whatif/what-if-everyone-spoke-
FINAL RESEARCH PROJECT
Devastating Effects of Nuclear Bombs Mario Flor PeĂąafiel Yachay Tech December 2016
Abstract: This paper shows the reasons why humans should stop the production of nuclear bombs and eliminate those who already exist. Here you can find a brief discussion of the history of nuclear bombs and what those have caused. Also this paper shows the effects of nuclear bombs on many aspects and how it affects to our environment. The ethical part of having and producing nuclear bombs will be discussed. There is also a section where the idea of the use of nuclear bombs by Bong Wie is refuted.
Key words: Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Weapons, Consequences of a nuclear war, Effects of Nuclear bombs.
"So long as nuclear weapons continue to exist, so will the temptation to threaten others with overwhelming military force." -Daisaku Ikeda. In 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested in New Mexico. This event marks the beginning of the nuclear age. The first nuclear event took place in 1945 with the detonation of a uranium bomb over Hiroshima killing thousands of people by just pressing one button (Granoff, 2000). Three days after that, Nagasaki suffered the same destination. Effects of those nuclear bombs did not finish with an explosion. Radiation released by those bombs caused problems for years after detonations. Nowadays there are lots of nuclear bombs. Since 1945, the creation of nuclear bombs has increased in a dangerous way. There are laws and regulations against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but those are not taken into account for some countries. Countries have to stop the creation of nuclear bombs and eliminate those that have been created. Humans should not own atomic weapons because nuclear bombs have only brought destruction and death to humanity, dismantling nuclear bombs will conserve our human ethics and moral, and will prevent environmental problems that nuclear bombs bring.
Since the first nuclear bomb was released, there have been many terrible consequences that those weapons have brought. “Nuclear weapons are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created� (ican, 2012). This phrase describes what nuclear bombs represent, only destruction and death. Nuclear bombs can cause all kind of horrifying effects on people. It does not affect only the area where the explosion occurred. Nuclear bombs release enormous amounts of destructive energy. This energy is released in three principal forms: blast, heat, and radiation. Depending on the power of the bomb it affects a vast area. Blast and heat energy kills
almost instantly, but radioactive energy causes radiation sickness that kills in a slow way. Radiation cause damage in cells, mutations and lead to cancer, from leukemia or blood cancer to incurable cancer as thyroid, lung and breast cancers (ican, 2012). In a 3km radius, a 100-KT nuclear bomb acts as a radioactive fireball hotter than the Sun with a force of 100,000 tons of TNT. Obviously it kills everything in its step. In a 5km radius, people do not die as fast as before. The majority of people die from blast injuries, asphyxiation and over weeks because of radiation sickness. In a 10km radius half of people die because of trauma, burns (from fires and bomb heat) and radiation sickness. In an 80 km radius, radioactive still exist for over decades causing radiation sickness, cancers and deformation on unborn babies (ican, 2012) . It is known for all people that nuclear bombs were used in the Nagasaki and Hiroshima cities in 1945. More than 240,000 innocent people died, and much more people suffered injuries. Approximately between 15% and 20% of victims died because of radiation sickness. In both cities the majority of people were civils. (The Manhattan Engineer District, 1946). Only people who were affected and suffered because of those nuclear bombs know how horrifying and inhumane those killing machine are. What is worst is that destruction does not finish with the end of the explosion. It leads sickness and mutilations on people that will affect rest of their lives. This idea takes us to our next question. Is it ethical that by pressing a button anyone can extinct human race? If killing all humanity is as simple as pressing a button, then something is going wrong with us.
What makes us different from animals is the capacity of having moral and ethical thoughts. Hiroshima and Nagasaki events killed thousands of innocent people in just seconds. There were no judgments, no discrimination, no justice, no humanity, just destruction, and death. Imagine the preparation of these weapons. There are people
building, planning, and making calculus to create weapons that destroy everything and everyone. Creators of nuclear bombs do not know the people that they will kill, they have never seen them, and anyway, they create the weapons. They will kill millions of people, men, women, and children. Also, it affects and kills animals and plants. There is a law against nuclear bombs called “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons� that was signed in 1968. (Granoff, 2000) This treaty try to stop the production and proliferation of nuclear bombs. It also intends to implement the cooperation of countries with peaceful uses of nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament. (U.S. Delegation, 2010) Being against this treaty, a treaty that was signed by almost all countries of the world and is looking for world peace, is immoral. This deal try to eliminate nuclear weapons and use nuclear information for peaceful purposes. Anybody can go against the law, being against the law is unethical and being for nuclear bombs is, in many ways, unethical. Elimination of nuclear bombs will not only conserve our ethics, but it will also conserve our environment.
Nuclear bombs cause enormous environmental problems. If there were a nuclear war, the consequences would be disastrous for the planet. Only 5 percent of total nuclear weapons that exist is necessary to make our planet uninhabitable. In 2012 Robock and Toon claimed that dense smoke from a nuclear war would block a percentage of sunlight. (Robock & Toon, 2012) Even if we survived a nuclear war, the dust and smoke produced because of bombs would cause a decrease in global temperature because of the blocking of the sunlight. Water would be contaminated, and there would also be less precipitation. There would be starving people everywhere because of the lack of water for agriculture. Radioactive particles do not only affect water; also affects air, soil, and cattle. Another significant environmental loss for
humanity would be the disintegration of the ozone layer. Robock and Toon also suggest that there would be a massive ozone depletion because of the heat released to the stratosphere. This ozone depletion would make the existence of radiation even bigger than “just” the radiation of a nuclear bomb (Robock & Toon, 2012). Obviously, these consequences are not beneficial for anyone, nobody wins. Our kids will be born with malformations because of radiation in the environment and they will die because of the lack of food. Other researchers affirm that a nuclear war can lead us to a “nuclear winter” because of the decrease in global temperature (Satariano, 2008). In spite of all these arguments that shows the destruction that those bombs can cause, some people want to use this on advantage for space dangers.
Taking into account that there are so many dangers in the space, it is logical that many people believe that we should have a defense system. And it isn’t hard to think that the best solution for a devastating asteroid is an explosion. That idea is what Bong Wie and his team are developing. Bong Wie is the director of the Asteroid Deflection Research Center at Iowa State University. Wie said: "We have the solution, using our baseline concept, to be able to mitigate the asteroid-impact threat, with any range of warning." Wie shared that he and his team are studying a design spacecraft labeled Hypervelocity Asteroid Intercept Vehicle (HAIV) which uses nuclear power and would be exploded into space to destroy the asteroid. An asteroid could be neutralized, depending on the diameter of the asteroid, with a short warning time from one day to three weeks. Some people would say that nuclear bombs can be useful and ethical if they are used for earth protection. It is true that nuclear bombs would be the “easiest” way to destroy an asteroid. But, without taking into account the secondary effects of a
massive explosion near our planet, we still have the power of our extinction in our hands.
Even if a nuclear bomb is a solution for an asteroid problem, it is known that nuclear bombs are a symbol of destruction and dead. If we blew up an asteroid, its pieces would fall to earth, and the problem would not disappear. This solution is infantile and not well thought. In this paper is described all the problems that nuclear bombs has brought and will probably bring in the future. A nuclear bomb is controlled by a human. An effect of that is that it feels like that person is pointing a fire gun on your head every time. Nobody can live in peace with a fire gun on his head. A simple human has the power of killing other humans on his hands. That person can cause death and destruction. That power on a person can’t be ethical. We already know all the disasters that nuclear bombs has caused, from instant destruction to chronic radiation that causes malformations and the destruction of our environment. Anyway, there will pass a long time before an asteroid comes to Earth (if it happens) so we have time to find better and less destructive ways to protect our planet from asteroids.
In conclusion, bombs should not exist because of all the terrible effects that these have caused. We need to learn from our past and remember all disasters that nuclear bombs have caused in our word. Nuclear bombs destroy everything: people, animals, plants, our environment, and our future. We need to conserve our ethics and moral by destroying nuclear weapons. We can use nuclear knowledge in a peaceful and beneficial way without creating killing machines. We all need to live without the fear that nuclear bombs produce.
References Granoff, J. (2000). Nuclear Weapons, Ethics, Morals, and Law. BYU L. Rev. 1413 (2000). Retrieved from http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/keyissues/ethics/issues/political/weapons_ethics.pdf ican. (2012, August). Catastrophic Humanitarian Harm. Retrieved from International campaign to abolish nuclear weapons: http://www.icanw.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/catastrophicharm2012.pdf Robock, A., & Toon, O. B. (2012). Self-assured destruction: The climate impacts of nuclear war. Atomic Scientists. doi:10.1177/0096340212459127 Satariano, A. (2008). Earth’s Ozone Would Be Largely Destroyed in Nuclear Conflict. Bloomberg. The Manhattan Engineer District. (1946). THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI. Manhattan.
The last presentation of English language program at Yachay
After that you have seen my final paper. I want to say thank you for spending your time reading this part of my life. I hope this can be usefull for you someday.