Environmental Controversy Resources and Pollution Discussion Paper

Environmental Controversy Resources and Pollution Discussion Paper

Table of Contents

Order ID# 45178248544XXTG457	Plagiarism Level: 0-0.5%	Writer Classification: PhD competent
Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago	Delivery: Minimum 3 Hours	Revision: Permitted
Sources: 4-6	Course Level: Masters/University College	Guarantee Status: 96-99%

Instructions

Environmental Controversy Resources and Pollution Discussion Paper

This week’s environmental controversy focuses on bottled water in terms of its health, safety, and financial issues. People disagree on whether government or private groups should be designated to promote healthier water. What is your position? Review the background information. Then using the references along with resources from your own research, write a 1–2-page response to the questions below. Remember to cite your sources using proper APA format.

Background Information

Critics of bottled water note that the products often contain dangerous bacteria and other contaminants. They argue that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs to better regulate the contents of bottled water. Others argue that media watchdog groups and competition within the private sector, rather than more regulations, are the best solutions for improving the quality of bottled water.

use these references to help answer the questions that follow. You may want to also search the Internet for additional resources.

Bottled water: More than just a story about sales growth; Stringent federal, state and industry standards help ensure safety, quality and good taste. (2007, April 9). PR Newswire. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1251895191).

Lisa Turner. (2001, December). Toxins on tap? Better Nutrition, 63(12), 48-50. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 90062665).

Brown, J. (2008, May). Water pressure. Vegetarian Times, (358), 29-31,6. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1466274691).
Krogstad, A. (2009, January). Purifying the business of selling water. E : the Environmental Magazine, 20(1), 10-11. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1626604811).

Knopper, M. (2008, May). Bottled water backlash. E : the Environmental Magazine, 19(3), 36-39. Retrieved October 8, 2009, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1475949361).

Questions

Based on what you have read, do you believe that pollution standards should be established for bottled water? What arguments most influenced your decision? How would you explain your position to someone who disagrees with you?

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Environmental Controversy Resources and Pollution Discussion Paper

Environmental Controversy Resources and Pollution Discussion Paper

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!