discover discussion debate - nuclear weapons pros and cons - a debate
DESCRIPTION
Nuclear weapons is a difficult topic. What are some pros and cons? You may have some already, or you may not have too many ideas. this is a modified interview on the topic. Discover what you know. Discuss your views and form opinions, through the discussion questions and vocabulary. Expand your ideas through a structured debate.TRANSCRIPT
Discovery Discussion Debate Nuclear Arms Pros and Cons This is a script of a debate on nuclear arms. Though the topic is in the news more often today, interaction and discussion is very important in today’s culture. Discover the idea. Discuss and form your opinions. Challenge your opinions through debate. Dr. Paul R. Friesen
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 1 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Title:
Pros and cons
of new nuclear weapons
debated
Discover Ideas (Outline)
Discuss the Story
(3 Question Levels)
Create Opinions
Nuclear Weapons
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 2 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Before you start
Look through the idea, front to back.
The ideas in red are just ideas. Students should add to these.
There is an outline page for Discovery.
There are graphic organizer pages for the Discussion and Debate sections.
The reason for the worksheets, at the end of the book, is to help you work
systematically through the material. Worksheets are helpers and can be a distraction
from the rhythm and sequence in your teaching. By putting them at the end they
become support pages versus places to stop, giving a smoother presentation.
Discovery
In the beginning of each story you will have a few questions to discover what you
know, or think you know about a story. The Title of the article/ story will be given
and you will be asked to discover the story by asking good questions.
In the second part of discovery you will be asked to find words which you do not
know. Some of these may be highlighted already in bold. Definitions will follow to
help you discover what the writer is talking about.
Discovery will help you form a plan for the discussion and debate.
Discussion
Discussion is not a debate, though it can quickly become one if there are strong
opposing ideas in the group.
Discussion can be a part of the discovery before you read the story. It may also come
after to discuss the ideas of the story. Sometimes a person’s views may change after
reading the article, which is a good way to start a discussion.
Discussion is interaction without a lot of structure. Be careful not to confuse
discussion with argument. Debate is about argument. Discussion is about sharing
your views and interacting with others’ who want to expand or give a differing
viewpoint.
Debate
Debate is a structured idea. It means that only one person speaks in turn, and with a
specific point to address. It also has a time limit, so the speaker must be precise in
their argument. In a debate the key is to listen and be prepared to oppose the other
team’s ideas. It takes research, a lot of work, and patience.
In the following story we want to begin with discovery ideas. What can you know
from a title, if you don’t know about the topic?
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 3 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
In discovery you will form ideas to create basics ideas for an outline. In discussion
you will ask questions to help you build an outline for your viewpoint. In debate you
will separate the outline into two sections, for and against. At each stage you will be
able to use what you have learned before, to expand on your ideas and understand
both sides of the issue.
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 4 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Discovery
Title: Pros and cons of new nuclear weapons debated
By James Kitfield August 18, 2003
http://www.govexec.com/defense/2003/08/pros-and-cons-of-new-nuclear-weapons-debated/14783/
What can you know from the title?
①. ______________________________________________
②. ______________________________________________
③. ______________________________________________
④. ______________________________________________
⑤. ______________________________________________
What do I know about this topic?
①. __________________________________________
②. __________________________________________
③. __________________________________________
④. __________________________________________
What would make a better deterrent?
①. __________________________________________
②. __________________________________________
③. __________________________________________
④. __________________________________________
What do you think is a way to control the arms race?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 5 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Now read the story.
①. Create an outline of the story / paragraphs.
②. There is a list of words on the side for you to find.
③. After you have found the words, look in the definitions, which
follow the story.
④. Discover the words you don’t know.
Nuclear Weapons
Pros and cons of new nuclear weapons debated
By James Kitfield /August 18, 2003
Even as anti-nuke demonstrators were organizing protests around the country to
commemorate the early-August anniversaries of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in 1945, the U.S. Strategic Command held a little-publicized meeting of
senior Bush administration officials on August 6 and 7 to advance plans for a new
generation of nuclear arms. Proponents of the plan argue that the United States needs
to tailor smaller, bunker-buster nukes in order to threaten underground nuclear
facilities that may be built by such nations as North Korea and Iran. Opponents
counter that manufacturing a new generation of nuclear weapons will deal a severe
blow to the international arms-control regime and break down the firewall separating
nuclear and conventional arms, leading to greater nuclear proliferation and the
increased possibility of a nuclear war. What both sides agree on, however, is that
nuclear proliferation is emerging as the single greatest threat to U.S. national security,
and that America is at a crossroads in determining how to deal with it. In recent
interviews, National Journal correspondent James Kitfield spoke with leading voices
on both sides of the argument. C. Paul Robinson is director of Sandia National
Laboratories, one of the nation's three primary nuclear weapons labs, and a former
chief negotiator at the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Nuclear Testing Talks in Geneva during the
1980s. Joseph Cirincione is director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace in Washington, and a co-author of Deadly
Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Following are edited excerpts of
their separate interviews.
NJ: The one point of agreement that emerges in the debate about the Bush
administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review is that the fundamental equation of
nuclear deterrence has been forever altered by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the
proliferation of nuclear technology, and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Is
that a fair assumption?
Robinson: Deterrence has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and
we're still sorting out what that means for our nuclear posture and the future. As
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 6 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Russia becomes more of a friend than an enemy, we are no longer confronted with a
nation that threatens our very existence. I spent many sleepless nights during the Cold
War worrying about stability matrixes and first-strike, "use-them-or-lose-them"
calculations. That kind of Armageddon scenario is now a distant worry. I still worry,
however, about the proliferation of nuclear materials and technologies from Russia,
because in many respects it's a Third World nation now, and in the Third World
everything is for sale. I regret that as a nation we haven't been bolder in developing a
Marshall Plan for Russia, that would help it reach at least a minimum level of
prosperity, which is the best antidote to that kind of proliferation. That problem is
related, in turn, to what I believe is our greatest emerging threat -- rogue states armed
with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.
NJ: Given such seismic events as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the
September 11 terror attacks, doesn't it make sense to re-evaluate our strategic ability
to deter aggression?
Cirincione: Absolutely, and we should be taking a new look at our deterrence posture.
It's important for people to understand that this is not what the Bush administration is
doing. The January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review directed the departments of Energy
and Defense to begin development of new nuclear weapons, and to formulate new
policies to accommodate such weapons. As a result, the nuclear weapons labs have re-
established advanced-warhead concept teams to explore modifications of existing
weapons, and to develop low-yield weapons and nuclear earth-penetrators that can be
used against hardened targets. The Bush administration has already decided that we
need new nuclear weapons, and they are now going ahead implementing policies to
reach that goal step by step. They understand that this is a very controversial decision,
however, so they have adopted "salami" tactics -- they are slicing off a little bit at a
time.
NJ: Are the labs developing new nuclear weapons?
Robinson: That depends on how you define "new." If we take a warhead off the shelf
that we designed and tested in the past, and then put it on a new delivery vehicle, is
that a new nuclear weapon? We will probably have to manufacture new copies
because we produced only a few originally, but it is not a new design, nor will we
need to test it. I can categorically state that no one is proposing returning to nuclear
testing. The main point is that the world is not static. Over the past decade, nations
have gone to school on our conventional military capabilities, and many of them have
adopted a strategy of moving their high-value targets out of our reach by locating
them in deeply buried tunnels and inside mountains. If you want to know who the
main culprits are, just look at which nations are buying these huge tunnel-boring
machines. You'll find that North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya have all built a lot of
underground facilities. We keep having to relearn this lesson that the world is not
stupid, and potential adversaries will constantly take actions to better their strategic
position and counter our strengths. I would argue that the United States must respond
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 7 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
by maintaining a robust deterrent against whatever is hidden in those underground
facilities.
NJ: Does the United States need a low-yield, nuclear bunker-buster to hold an
enemy's underground facilities at risk?
Cirincione: This argument that we need mini-nukes as earth penetrators is based on a
lie. Every independent study done on this issue has concluded that for any target
buried more than 50 yards underground, you would still need a very large nuclear
warhead. Mini-nukes of a kiloton or less just don't get the job done. The big nukes
you would need in order to reach a truly deep underground bunker, meanwhile, would
kick up so much dirt that you would have a major problem with radioactive fallout.
More to the point, there are multiple ways of attacking underground facilities using
conventional weapons that would be more effective. With repeated precision strikes
using conventional earth-penetrating bombs, you can bore deeper and deeper until you
reach your target. You could use high-temperature thermo-baric weapons that have
the advantage of destroying biological and chemical agents and pathogens. You could
use precision-strike or Special Operations forces to seal the exit and entrance tunnels
to an underground facility.
NJ: Are there viable conventional alternatives to nuclear bunker-busters?
Robinson: Our primary focus is still to accomplish this with conventional weapons,
and we work hard on that problem. Nuclear weapons remain a blunt instrument of last
resort. We've conducted more than 4,000 penetrator tests, at Sandia, since the 1960s,
however, and we have a lot of data on the problem. Basically our tests show that
conventional penetrators don't work very well. In the aftermath of the bombing
campaign against Serbia, for instance, we discovered that we did very little to no
damage against buried targets. So if we can find ways to strike these buried targets
with conventional weapons, we will. If we can't, however, we need to look at what
can be accomplished with a nuclear earth-penetrator that causes the least possible
amount of collateral damage. That leads you away from two-stage, thermo-nuclear
weapons to smaller-yield, lighter weapons with high reliability. A national command
authority confronted in a crisis with the prospect of killing 40,000 people with a
thermo-nuclear weapon in order to take out a bunker is probably going to decide not
to. If we could design a bunker-buster that would kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000
people, on the other hand, the answer would probably be yes if the situation was
critical. Those are the weapons the Bush administration gave us the OK to begin
researching about a year ago, because our scientists felt handcuffed by restrictions that
were in place at the time.
NJ: Would rogue nations be deterred from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, or
building underground bunkers, if they knew their facilities could be reached by
nuclear earth-penetrators?
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 8 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Cirincione: The Bush administration has adopted this arrogant attitude that the
United States can take the dramatic step of developing these weapons, and there will
be no international repercussions or imitators. If the most powerful nation the world
has ever known says it needs a new class of nuclear weapon to defend itself against
weapons of mass destruction, however, why don't other countries also need them?
Why doesn't Iran, which has actually been attacked by chemical weapons? The real
danger of this concept is that it blurs the lines between nuclear and conventional
weapons, making nukes just another tool in the toolbox that could be used for tactical
battlefield purposes. In that sense, this argument is less about deterrence than war
fighting. We already have plenty of doomsday weapons in our arsenal if all we're
trying to do is scare people. They are planning on using these weapons. And if the
United States were to use them, it would cross a threshold that has not been breached
since the Truman administration. That in turn would encourage other nations to
develop and use nuclear weapons in a similar manner. That's not in the United States'
national security interests. Given that we have never accepted a nuclear weapon into
our arsenal without testing -- with the exception of the Hiroshima bomb -- the path the
Bush administration is on also greatly increases the likelihood that the United States
will return to nuclear testing, which would be a terrible blow to the non-proliferation
regime.
NJ: Will developing a nuclear bunker-buster likely lead to new testing?
Robinson: I don't think we will need new testing, because the warhead we are talking
about has already been tested. As I said earlier, we would need to start production of
new warheads again. I continue to abide by my statements that we're a long way from
going back to nuclear tests. Having said that, I helped write the safeguards that were
written into the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratification protocols, which
essentially stated that the President of the United States would withdraw from the
treaty and return to testing, if a serious problem developed in the U.S. nuclear arsenal,
that required testing for a solution. The point I'm making is, the United States has
been willing to abide by these treaties only as long as they do not conflict with our
essential security posture.
NJ: How do you respond to arms control experts who charge that remanufacturing a
new class of nuclear bunker-busters violates the Non-proliferation Treaty, which
commits the United States to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures
relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race" and "to nuclear disarmament?"
Robinson: I was in the Reagan administration when we debated what exactly was
meant by Article VI of the NPT, and it seems to me that the end state of total nuclear
disarmament that the treaty envisions will occur around the same time that the lamb
lies down with the lion. And I always argued that even at that point, the lamb still
won't get much sleep. In truth, I believe that the NPT was intended more as a
confidence-building measure than as a real arms control treaty that we were willing to
bet our country's survival on. We would never have negotiated an arms control treaty
with the ridiculous verification inspections by the International Atomic Energy
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 9 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Agency prescribed in the NPT, which missed the programs in Iraq and Iran and even
Israel. Where has the IAEA spent the most money in terms of inspections? (In
Germany, Canada, and Japan. )Why? Because it is a confidence-building measure
among friendly countries eager to prove they are not violating it. It was never set up to
catch cheaters. That's why I disagree with people who infer that the NPT is a real
arms control treaty. It's not.
NJ: Is the NPT more a gentlemen's agreement than an arms control treaty?
Cirincione: That's just nonsense. President Bush just negotiated a treaty on strategic
nuclear weapons with Moscow that has no verification regime, yet he still insists that
it's vital to our national security. The NPT was the beginning of what became a
comprehensive, interlocking network of treaties, agreements, and enforcement
mechanisms designed to stop the proliferation of not only nuclear weapons, but also
chemical and biological weapons. It established a legal and diplomatic framework for
a non-nuclear future, and it has worked. Instead of the 20 to 25 nuclear nations that
President John F. Kennedy predicted, we now have eight worldwide. That's still eight
too many, but that's not a bad track record. As the nuclear states continue to move
toward ever-smaller arsenals as called for in the NPT, we will continue to devalue
nuclear weapons globally. That's the whole crux of the matter: Given our
overwhelming conventional military superiority, the United States is more secure in a
world where nuclear weapons are devalued and dwindling as opposed to a world
where we and others are developing new nuclear weapons for new uses. Now, there
are certainly enforcement problems with the non-proliferation regime, as there are
with all international and national laws. Does that automatically mean the laws are
useless? No, it means we need to get better at enforcement and adapting them to new
circumstances. There's no question that we need to toughen IAEA inspections and to
take a fresh look at some of the fundamental tenets of the non-proliferation regime.
Some people in the Bush administration think the first thing you do in such a
circumstance is tear down the bridge you're standing on. I argue instead that we need
to strengthen the bridge.
NJ: Do you credit the NPT for slowing the march of nuclear proliferation?
Robinson: I think the North Atlantic Treaty extending our nuclear umbrella to our
European allies did much more to prevent nations from going nuclear than the NPT,
and will do more in the future as more Eastern European nations join NATO. That's
why I argue that we should also extend that umbrella further from Japan to encompass
Southeast Asian nations such as South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, and the
Philippines.
NJ: Do you ever worry that the United States' aggressive strategy of pre-emption,
coupled with our overwhelming conventional military capability, might convince
some nations that nuclear weapons are their only deterrent against us?
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 10 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Robinson: The National Security Strategy lays out very carefully the conditions that
might prompt pre-emption, which are basically limited to those instances when the
threat of many American deaths is imminent and you have the nexus of rogue states
with weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists. Having said that, a friend of
mine recently pointed out that the United States was not deterred from going to war
by Iraq's supposed arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. We haven't responded
nearly as quickly to North Korea's announcement that it has nuclear weapons. Some
people could draw the lesson that the United States can be deterred by nuclear
weapons, but not by chemical or biological ones. I can't argue with that conclusion.
Vocabulary Check
Find the colored words. Write a definition you can discover from the story if
possible.
__________
1. ______________________________________________________
__________
2. ______________________________________________________
__________
3. ______________________________________________________
__________
4. ______________________________________________________
__________
5. ______________________________________________________
__________
6. ______________________________________________________
__________
7. ______________________________________________________
__________
8. ______________________________________________________
__________
9. ______________________________________________________
___________
10. ______________________________________________________
__________
11. ______________________________________________________
__________
12. ______________________________________________________
__________
13. ______________________________________________________
__________
14. ______________________________________________________
__________
15. ______________________________________________________
__________
16. ______________________________________________________
__________
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 11 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
17. ______________________________________________________
__________
18. ______________________________________________________
__________
19. ______________________________________________________
__________
20. ______________________________________________________
__________
21. ______________________________________________________
__________
22. ______________________________________________________
__________
23. ______________________________________________________
__________
24. ______________________________________________________
__________
25. ______________________________________________________
__________
26. ______________________________________________________
__________
27. ______________________________________________________
__________
28. ______________________________________________________
__________
29. ______________________________________________________
__________
30. ______________________________________________________
___________
31. ______________________________________________________
__________
32. ______________________________________________________
__________
33. ______________________________________________________
__________
34. ______________________________________________________
__________
35. ______________________________________________________
__________
36. ______________________________________________________
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 12 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Discovery What do I know about this topic?
List at least four (4) different ideas you have found in this story.
①. __________________________________________
②. __________________________________________
③. __________________________________________
④. __________________________________________
Use them when you make your outline.
Discussion
Level I
①. Who should start a nuclear war? Explain.
②. How can you put a value on nuclear weapons?
③. Where has the IAEA spent the most money in terms of inspections?
Level II
①. Is nuclear proliferation controllable?
②. If only the super powers had nuclear weapons would you feel safe?
③. Are bunker-busters really needed? Explain.
④. Do we really need a different style of nuclear weapons? Explain.
Level III
①. Should the USA stick to the treaties all the time, or just when they agree with
them? Explain.
②. Is it better to move from a two-stage, thermo-nuclear weapons to smaller-yield,
lighter weapons with high reliability?
③. Are nuclear weapons a good deterrent for any conflict? Explain.
You now have everything you need to fill out your outline.
Look at your answers, under Discussion, and fill it out to reflect the
new ideas.
These new ideas will help you form your debate ideas better.
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 13 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
In debate you will have a statement not a question. You have to react to the statement
with facts, not opinions.
Discussions are based a lot on opinions and answer questions. This is where
these two ideas, though similar, are different.
Debate is about facts and statements.
When you make a statement, from a story, you must consider what the core
issue is. If you have made a good outline, you will have this already
discovered.
This story is from ________. The core issue could be; (one word)
__________
__________
__________
__________
In today’s world the topics could range from;
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
__________________
These are all good argument that you would want to research for your argument, or
write in your essay. Build the argument starting from “Why?” Once you have
determined the “Why?” you can find facts to support your idea.
Smaller is better in nuclear weapons.
Bunker busters are the only answer as a deterrent to nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are just to scare other nations.
Before you start choose one of the above statements to focus on. Choose a
“for” or “against” position.
Research to find FACTS for your position.
List the facts.
Write out your argument in a long paragraph format. Include the opposite
position in your writing.
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 14 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
You need to write out both sides so you can understand the
other sides’ argument.
Discovery Outline Main topic ________________________
Find one (1) key idea in each paragraph. (3-5 words)
Paragraph 1 ______________________________
Paragraph 2 ______________________________
Paragraph 3 ______________________________
Paragraph 4 ______________________________
Paragraph 5 ______________________________
Write two things about the main paragraph idea.
Paragraph 1 ______________________________
A. ______________________________
B. ______________________________
Paragraph 2 ______________________________
A. ______________________________
B. ______________________________
Paragraph 3 ______________________________
A. ______________________________
B. ______________________________
Paragraph 4 ______________________________
A. ______________________________
B. ______________________________
Paragraph 5 ______________________________
A. ______________________________
B. ______________________________
In the introduction you use the 5 paragraph ideas to communicate the order of
your argument/ essay.
In the conclusion you repeat what you have said about the points of each
paragraph.
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 15 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Graphic Organization ~
Main topic = 5 Paragraph Topics
Main topic
paragraph 1
________________________________________________
paragraph 2 ________________________________________________
paragraph 3
________________________________________________
paragraph 4 ________________________________________________
paragraph 5
________________________________________________
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 16 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Discussion Graphic ~ Is this a problem / becoming a problem in today’s society?
Answer ~ I think nuclear weapons are (a / becoming a) problem because ……
Problem /
Pros and Cons
Bunker busters are a good deterrent to
nuclear arms.
Respond
Respond
Nuclear arms are just to scare people. We need to develop a better deterrent.
Respond
Respond
Treaties are only good if they agree with my
govenrment's policies.
Respond
Respond
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 17 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
graphic ~ choose one statement from the list
above.
Write it here _____________________________________________
________________________________________________________
To make your argument you should understand that they are connected.
In the next two charts (1) list your argument facts and ideas, (2) show how your
argument connects to both the center point and the other points.
Facts
For Against
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Add more if needed
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 18 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
graphic ~ choose one statement from the list
above.
Now start the .
As a team choose which points they will speak about.
Each person will listen for the opposite point and create a new
response to what the other person has said.
A: point 1
B: responds to the point and give a new point.
C: responds to B and give a new point.
After all persons have spoken each person can respond to any point given by the
opposite team, or add more points from their team which will need responding to from
the opposite team.
If this -- then
If this -- then
If this -- then
If this -- then
If this -- then
Write your statement position here.
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
______________________________
Discovery Discussion Debate
Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 19 of 20
Original Story copyright of original author
Graphic organizers from MS Office templates
Dear Teacher/ Student,
After you have finished this please look for more in this series to challenge yourself.
This is only part of a curriculum. It starts with Dr. Roy’s Everything Grammar.
Dr. Roy’s Everything Grammar Volumes I and II will develop the skills of story and
essay writing, while at the same time building a foundation in grammar. The
repetition of grammar, combined with reason and speaking, culminating in a story or
essay will prepare students for this series.
Going beyond this book is a book to expand the outlines into essays. Good essays are
able to build and defend an argument. Building a structure for debate will springboard
off this skill set.
Dr. Paul R. Friesen