KarWai’s SubBlog

Hey Merry Christmas to All!!

And happy new Year too!! XD

Wish everyone to be happy ^^

Those highlighted are copied from my blog…

I did some "cleaning" just now - arranged my books and papers. I found that that are alot of stuffs that I no longer need it, there are some of my pass year question papers, my thinking skill papers, etc…

So that’s all, anyone who wish to have those papers, come to claim from me ^^

Click for the list:

http://www.freewebs.com/shadowren/list/booklist.htm

Tried the <photo album> of friendster, basically it is nice but the limitation is kidda annoying… The max size of a picture uploaded is only 500px… I uploaded some 640 X 480 and ended up being in smaller size… swt

http://karwaiblog.blogs.friendster.com/photos/rta/

For your concern, this is it.

Environment—Thinking Skill

My thinking skill exam is on tomorrow, so I make some question for you all ^^ and I will relate it with environmental problems. <b onClick="alert(’My main purpose after all ^^’); return false">*</b>
<hr>
<b>Some animals have done harms to Human, but this is the consequences of Human to exploit the nature for their own good. Yet, human have killed this animals by claiming that it is a self defence by doing so. This is wrong, because human have interfered the animals in the first place…</b>

Q: What is the main conclusion? And can you find any underlying assumption in this argument.

<b>It is well known that Human are wrong by building structures which are not natural in our planet. This is because there will be a great lost of natural animals and plants. But human had already builded things for centuries, and we cannot undo this circumstances, therefore we should continue the activities.</b>

Q: What is the flaw in this argument. (assume that the reasons are flawless)
A The author failed to provide statistical evidences for the lost of natural living things.
B The author assumes that this activities (building) cannot be stopped once it has started.
C The first sentence is contradicting with his main conclusion.
D The reasons are not sufficient to support its main conclusion.
E The author is insane.

<b>We accept the fact that human can eat some animals because we are omnivors. Human eat chickens, fish etc… But it is ridiculous that human should eat monkeys, monkeys are wild animals, compared to chickens which are raised… Beside, eating chicken is because we need the nutrient of the chickens, and there is no unwanted consequences by doing so (since chickens are raised). Eating monkeys will causes imbalance of nature. So we must not eat monkeys. (and other wild animals)</b>

Q: What is the principle underlying this passage.
A We must not eat wild animals because they are wild.
B We must only do something when the benefits outweighed the bad consequences.
C It is wrong to eat animals which are looked alike to human.
D We should only eat animals which provide nutrient to us.
E It is because we have already do this, therefore we must continue doing it.

<hr>
You can choose to answer in my comment box.

*Note: However, the HTML codes are shown.

Felt bored, so I simply blog again here… Going to have my Chemistry Practical Test later… Wish me luck ^^

For more info, visit my main blog –> http://karwaiblog.blogspot.com/

haha… juz for fun…

my real blog : here

hehe…