1- What makes Will's essay interesting is that his title does not at all prepare the reader for an argument about drilling in the National Arctic Wildfire Refuge. In addition, in his other columns he usually likes to make fun at the green folks environmentalists, and what will make it highly persuasive is to have the title focused on the body of the column, because it will give the reader an idea about what the writer will talk about in the column.
2- Dear representative,
I am with rising tax on farmers, I think it is good and normal if the tax average is 300$ per year, because it will reduce livestock emissions of methane and nitrous oxide which are causing many health problems and pollution. Also, 300$ is an ideal amount of money to be paid along a year. To conclude, the tax on farmers can five them insurance on their farms and livestock from any unexpected circumstances that arise at anytime. Regards,
3- She got a strong opinion for a strong argument because the majority of religious people in Alaska will agree with her. I think they are saying it is useless, because there will be no benefits from drilling over there, so it is not that strong argument but a normal one. There will be homeless people especially those native ones who will not agree with the drilling. Yes, we do have moral duty to preserve some unspoiled areas, we must keep our natural lands and stay up against any destruction on them.
4- I think the best solution is to drill, because it will offer many people jobs including the Ketchikan Indians, but also keep in mind that Ketchikan Indians want to live too, so apply to their demands with convincing them with drilling and do not destroy the herds that they depend on.
5- I do not think it is enough convincing, because the solution is development of renewable energy for a lifelong, not to risk distributing for 50 years only.
6- The attention should be normal, all people are...