What concerns people most in choosing their own question may be their doubt about sufficient understanding about it. With the following quick share, hopefully, choosing one out of the three questions will be quite easier.
Question 1 is the shortest:
Choose a major engineering accident (“Psychology and design processes” lists some at the beginning of section two). Present an argument on whether the use of psychology as described in “Psychology and design processes” during the design process would have prevented the accident.
The article mentions many things, but they are not quite useful for this question. Instead of understanding the content of that very long article, it is useful to have a glance at its first and last sentences of each paragraph. It indicates that engineering accidents are also due to the lack of social interaction. From that point, it is obvious that psychology can help with preventing accidents. "What is the relation between psychology" and "How can it help lessen the risk?" are the two questions need to be answered.
Question 2 takes some first lines to approach the topic:
As noted in “Nuclear power’s new dawn,” the public is very concerned about the safe operation of nuclear reactors. Public opposition was given as one reason why few nuclear reactors have been built in the past few decades in many countries. With this concern in mind, choose one of the generation IV reactor concepts listed on page 239 of “Nuclear power’s new dawn” and present an argument to support further research and development funding for it. Remember to consider influential factors such as security, cost or performance when you summarize and rebut opposing views. You will need to include very recently published sources in your references.
Two important terms which need to keep in mind are "reactor concepts" and "support". The question asks for a decision and then a reason for making it. One who chooses this question can first make a comparison between those concepts regarding of safety (or security), cost, performance and public reaction factors. The opposed arguments should be stated first before rebutting with supportive views. The topic of this question is rather easy to catch up, but persuasive thesis and efficient facts should be carried out.
Question 3 needs more surveying work:
Choose a concept or prototype currently in research and development and not widely available in the market. Present an argument on how the design can be improved to enhance safety. Remember to consider influential factors such as cost or performance when you summarize and rebut opposing views. You will need to include very recently published sources in your references.
Looking for a prospective device or technology that hasn't been popular is the first step. More brainstorming is needed in this question. After getting the concept (or prototype), one can think about a suggestion for the design in order to make it safer. Interaction between that concept and humans is a good starting-point. In line with every supportive argumentis an opposing view. Paragraph can be organized in block pattern to discuss about safety and infuential factors.
Each question of the WA2 has its own topic but relates to each other in the way of writing an argumentative essay. Before the moment of decision, reading the questions again and again to understand them is much essential.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like your take on the questions of WA2. They present great insight and detailed analysis on the possible areas of concern these questions allude to. In light of this, perhaps I may now need to personally re-evaluate my choice of questions?
ReplyDeletePersonally at first glance, I thought that all of the above questions were slightly stifling in scope. However, with subsequent research, it became obvious that these questions were actually much more ‘clever’ than expected. Psychology itself is a very diverse subject and human errors are evident in almost all cases of engineering failure. Moreover, it was a global concern when the US decided to slow its development in nuclear power, after the meltdown of 3 mile island proved that current technologies are insufficient.
Indeed, more brainstorming is needed before we may address the above questions satisfactorily. Till then, all the best to your research!