4.  Positives:  Energy Independence  Economically Beneficial  Less Air Pollution

5.  Negatives:  Water Pollution  Air Pollution  Methane Gas Leakage

6.  “Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources”  Form 41  Limited drilling in residential areas

7.  American Petroleum Institute. “Shale Energy: 10 Points Everyone Should Know.”api.org, 2012. Web. October 26, 2012.  Biello, David. “What the Frack? Natural Gas from Subterranean Shale Promises U.S. Energy Independence--With Environmental Costs.” Scientific American, 2012. Web. October 25, 2012.  Duke University. “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.” nicholas.duke.edu, 2011. Web. October 29, 2012.  Gearino, Dan. “Utica-shale estimate doubted.” The Columbus Dispatch, October 13, 2012. Web. October 27, 2012.  Simpkins, Bill. Personal interview. October 25, 2012.

8. ExcellentGoodFair Needs Work Context Purpose: perceptive definition of central question, visual & verbal; scope is narrow, question consistent throughout x Substance Development: sufficient summary & insight; slides focused & yet fully developed; mix of verbal & visual information x Sources: appropriate for topic, pertinent in placement, and accurately cited; quotations & data introduced correctly x Organization Thesis: a thesis, early or late, that clearly states both sides of question & its mediation x Introduction and Conclusion: overview of organization given at the beginning; conclusion sums up key points x Relationship: relationship of ideas clear; coherent; visual cues guide us through presentation x Style Visual Style: clear & to-the-point text on-screen; same for data on-screen; the verbal component fits the visual x Verbal & Sonic elements: engaging presence, name given, neither too colloquial nor too formal; no mumbling; any other use of sound (music, video) fitting x Conventions & Correctness  free from data errors  free from word errors (SP, etc.) x Response Team Response: Questions in class & written responses demonstrate understanding; response helps enhance presentation (rated “Excellent,” “Good,” or “Fair.”) x Name & Section : Gustaffson, MB

9.  Overall Comments: That “Fracking” slide is your third of only five overall — and only the second of the three that contain information pertinent to your presentation (the other two are the title & the Works C.). Thus, the “Fracking” slide was crucial, during your five minutes, & yet it’s clumsily laid out, w/ and unequal number of points on its two sides & the header “Disadvantages” stuck like an orphan at the bottom of the “Advantages” list. Not surprisingly, my notes complain of how long you spent on this slide, meandering among all the issues. Clearly, in this medium, you need work on structure. The best slide was the 2 nd overall, “the Process,” w/ its two clarifying visuals, but after that you badly needed to slow down & convert your good knowledge (I agree w/ the respondents on that) to something people could see. B+

10.  Houlihan, McLaughlin, Wallace  English 250 MB  Response Team: Gustafson (11/14/12)   Kendall Gustafson presented his issue of whether or not Americans should use fracking to acquire natural gases from shale rock layers in the U.S. He had three important slides: a visual slide that helped him explain fracking and where we can find these natural gases, a slide that explained both sides of the issue, and a mediation slide. His explanation of fracking and how we would obtain these gases was very clear to the audience (Houlihan). He sufficiently explained both sides of the issue (Wallace). His mediation was very clear as well (Wallace). Following his mediation was easy for the audience to do, because his presentation was structured so that it showed adequate comparisons between the advantages and disadvantages on one slide (McLaughlin). His use of the contrasting black and white colors made the words legible, and his slides had the appropriate amount of detail and incorporated the same yellow theme throughout for a pop of color (Houlihan). Gustafson used appropriate pictures that were straightforward and easy to see (Wallace). His slides were very detailed with few words, and he spoke clearly, relaxed, and loud enough for the entire room (McLaughlin). Overall, Gustafson had a very good presentation. His information on the slides was simplified, so that he could verbally explain his topic and mediation in further detail.   A number of good details here, though no one mentioned the chart. Still, you addressed the pertinent criteria sensitively. Plusses.