ESL 2520
Essay 2 – Comparison/Contrast
Comparison/Contrast Essay
A comparison/contrast essay shows similarities, differences or both similarities and differences between two like people, places, or objects. The key to writing a comparison/contrast essay effectively is making sure that you only choose two things to compare/contrast and that the things you are comparing are equal in type or kind. For instance, it is easy to compare George Bush and Bill Clinton because they are both people and they are both politicians. However, it would be difficult (and comical) to compare George Bush and a golden retriever because one is a person and one is a dog. Therefore, when choosing your subjects for this essay, make sure both objects of comparison are of equal type or kind.
STEP ONE: Choose a topic
Remember, you are only comparing two things in this essay. Some possible comparisons include:
- Two resort spots
- Two world leaders
- Two countries
- Two cities
- Two products/machines/appliances
- Ways of learning/teaching in two different countries
- Two different attitudes toward money/dating/clothes/marriage based on different cultures
- Houses/living environments in two different cultures
- Two different companies
- Two different types of shopping (i.e. online vs. in the store)
- Your choice (If you choose this, you must have it approved by me before you begin writing.)
STEP TWO: Finding information on your topic
For this essay, you will need to research and collect information on the items you are comparing. You will need to have at least ONE source of information (ie. from the web, a book, a magazine, etc.) that you use to write the essay. When you find information, be sure it is from a reliable source (Maria’s Cool Fact Page on Montana is probably not as reliable as the Montana Tourist Bureau web page) and be sure you can bring your sources in to class to use and eventually turn in to me with your essay drafts.
The reason we are using sources is because you will be taking information from them and citing this information within the essay. This will give you an opportunity to work on summarizing and paraphrasing in writing – two very important academic skills.
STEP THREE: Brainstorm categories for comparison
After you have found some information on your topic, you will need to determine what you want to discuss in your essay. Even though you are only comparing two items, we still are working with that MAGIC NUMBER “3” that American readers like so much. This means you will need three categories or points of comparison for the two things you are comparing. In order to determine the three points of comparison you want to focus on, you will need to look through your researched information and make a list of all the possible points you could write on. The comparison/contrast essay offers a different kind of brainstorming than the tree diagrams we practiced last time. In what is called the T-Diagram, you can “see” the comparisons you are making side-by-side.
A T-Diagram looks like what it’s called. For instance, if I wanted to compare my coffee types, I might create a T-Diagram that looks like this.
Method of Growth
|
Traditional
Although coffee is an introduced species in Latin America and elsewhere,
its cultivation remained virtually unchanged for over a century. A
traditional coffee farm is a multilayered ecosystem with an understory of
coffee shrubs, a middle level of fruit trees like avocado (Persea
americana), and an upper canopy of native hardwoods such as Mexican cedar
(Cedrela mexicana). The diversity of vegetation and the intermingling
of different layers is what creates such rich wildlife habitat. As ecologically diverse agroecosystems, traditional coffee farms not only
provide a diversity of wildlife habitat, but also benefit farmers
economically by providing a variety of products for local consumption and for
sale. Avocados, bananas, tangerines, honey, and timber offer another source
of income for traditional coffee farmers and a bit of insurance during lean
times, such as when coffee prices are low. A traditional coffee farm is virtually a self-sustaining ecosystem, with
little or no pesticides, fungicides, irrigation, or fertilizers necessary. At
least in the Western Hemisphere, according to Perfecto, “Coffee is not one of
those crops that is loaded with insect pests.” In traditional coffee
plantations, predation by birds, spiders, ants, and wasps helps keep insect
pests in check. Moreover, coffee’s alkaloid leaves make them unpalatable to
most insects. Those insects that evolved mechanisms to overcome coffee’s
defenses probably were left behind when coffee was brought to the New World,
although a relatively new arrival, the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus
hampei) has been wreaking havoc in coffee plantations in Nicaragua and
Mexico, and is slowly spreading throughout Latin America. Weeds and erosion
generally do not cause problems on traditional coffee farms. Leaf litter
forms a thick carpet of mulch, reducing evaporation, protecting the soil from
erosion, and keeping weeds at bay. Also, the protective canopy buffers the
soil from desiccating winds and the erosive forces of rain. The same cannot
be said for modernized coffee farms. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer
/1996/4/suncoffee.cfm
The transformation
from shade to sun coffee has been supported by international development
organizations such as the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID),
which has spent roughly $80 million over the last 17 years to promote the
technification of coffee throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. AID
still has sun coffee projects in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Haiti.
The modernization of coffee-growing methods mimics the agricultural
transformation that has occurred in the production of other crops such as
corn, rice, and wheat, where productivity is boosted through the use of
machinery and agrochemicals and by planting high-yielding varieties of these
crops. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1996/4/suncoffee.cfm
|
Organic
|
Cost
|
Traditional From $6-$12/pound (http://www.uncommongrounds.net/trellis/ Organically_Grown_Coffee_/6/6) |
Organic Range from $11-$14 a pound (http://www.uncommongrounds.net/trellis/
Organically_Grown_Coffee_/6/6)
Groups that certify crops as organic, such as the Organic Crop
Improvement Association, Inc. (OCIA) in Ohio, set stiff requirements for
crops that bear their labels. “We have over 40 pages of standards,” states
Betty Kananen, Executive Director of OCIA. The association requires that, at
a minimum, member farms be chemical free for at least three years immediately
before their certification. Farms are also subject to annual inspections.
Farmers must pay a one-time membership fee of $250 plus the cost of the
annual inspection (about $100 to $300). According to Kern, certification is
beyond the reach, financially, of most growers. |
Health Effects
|
Traditional Doesn’t
affect coffee drinker because toxins from insecticides burn off in the coffee
bean processing. But, does affect
farmers and plantation workers in a very negative way. http://www.helium.com/tm/276148/effects-chemicals-coffee-crops Edosulfan is one used against the coffee cherry
borer, and it takes years to breakdown as it stays in soil and even water.
It's toxic to birds, fish mammals and other life that when exposed or
ingested will cause harm if not death. These chemicals often affect the central
nervous system as well as kidney and liver damage. Another dangerous chemical is Chlorpyrifos
which is also used against the borer and leaf miner. This is a poison upon
contact it causes death in humans, birth defects, extremely hazardous to
birds, water foul, fish and other life that comes in contact with this
chemical. Disulfoton is another highly toxic chemical
that affects wildlife that feed on the insects that consume some of the
plants that have been treated. Other chemicals that all have the same threat
to wildlife include Cypermethrin, Triadimefon which are extremely toxic
especially to birds and fish. Since these chemicals cause such widespread
threats to so many life forms, they are banned here in the U.S. for obvious
reasons, whereas in these less-developed countries there are no guidelines
for their use except to protect the coffee crops which of course is money. http://www.helium.com/tm/281401/unlike-united-states-there |
Organic
|
Effects on the Environment
|
Traditional
The result has been increased erosion, polluted runoff, a substantial
reduction in wildlife habitat, and increased exposure of workers to hazardous
chemicals. According to Rice, modern, high-tech coffee farms, sometimes
referred to as “technified” farms, suffer significantly more soil erosion
than farms with shade trees. Soil erosion is particularly severe on steep
slopes, where coffee is commonly grown in Latin America. Overall, the conversion from shade to sun coffee has rendered coffee
farms as useless for wildlife as other tropical monocultures and raises
questions about the long-term sustainability of modern coffee production
methods. According to Norman Christensen, Jr., dean of Duke University’s
School of the Environment, writing in “Science and the Sustainable Use of
Land,” (Land Use in America, Island Press, 1996), “the long-term
sustainability of ecosystems and landscapes across the hierarchies of
ecological systems depends on complexity and diversity.” http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/
ZooGoer/1996/4/suncoffee.cfm) |
Organic Generally, there is a direct correlation between the structural diversity
of an ecosystem—the layers of habitat—and species diversity. This certainly
holds true for most traditional coffee farms. Indeed, biologists from the
Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center found that traditionally managed coffee
plantations in eastern Chiapas, Mexico, support over 150 species of birds, a
number exceeded only by undisturbed tropical forests. Likewise, researchers
have found the diversity of invertebrates in traditional coffee farms
approaches that of an undisturbed forest. For example, researchers at the
University of Michigan found 27 species of ants and 126 species of beetles in
a single tree in a shaded-coffee plantation in Costa Rica. A variety of
mammals have also been seen in Central American coffee plantations, including
foxes, weasels, kinkajous, squirrels, a variety of bats, and, in lowland
areas with adjacent forest, spider and howler monkeys. This is not to say, however,
that a traditional coffee farm supports the same level of biodiversity as a
native forest. http://nationalzoo.si. edu/ Publications/ZooGoer/1996/4/ suncoffee.cfm |
When I look at my T-diagram and all my possible points of comparison, I realize that the growth of these types of coffee and how they each affect the environment really can’t be separated. So I’ve decided to put them all into one paragraph and discuss the following three points: the way the coffee beans are grown, the effects on a person’s health, and the cost of the two types of coffee.
STEP FOUR: Create your thesis
Once I’ve chosen my three points of comparison, I can then put together a rough thesis statement that can guide me through the rest of the paper. Here is mine on coffee:
Insecticide-treated
coffee and organic coffee differ drastically with regard to how the coffee
beans for each are grown, what kinds of effects each has on the health of individuals,
and the cost of each type of coffee.
STEP FOUR: Visualize the Organization
After I’ve chosen my three points of comparison for the two items I’m comparing, then I must begin to “see” in my head how I’m going to set this essay up. With comparison/contrast essays, I can create one of two rhetorical structures. The one you choose really is determined by the topic you have chosen and by how much information you need to discuss for each point of comparison.
POINT-BY-POINT Comparison
This structure takes your three points and turns them into the body paragraphs, creating that five-paragraph essay structure we’ve discussed. It would look like this:
1. INTRODUCTION + Thesis
a. BODY PARAGRAPH ONE – Growing method
i. Insecticide-Treated Coffee
ii. Organic Coffee
b. BODY PARAGRAPH TWO – Health Effects
i. Insecticide-Treated Coffee
ii. Organic Coffee
c. BODY PARAGRAPH THREE – Cost
i. Insecticide-Treated Coffee
ii. Organic Coffee
2. CONCLUSION – Thesis restated
ITEM-BY-ITEM Comparison
This structure creates two body paragraphs, each paragraph focusing on one of my items that I’m comparing, and each paragraph discussing the three points of comparison for that item. It would look like this:
1. INTRODUCTION + Thesis
a. BODY PARAGRAPH 1 – Insecticide-Treated Coffee
i. Growing Methods
ii. Health Effects
iii. Cost
b. BODY PARAGRAPH 2 – Organic Coffee
i. Growing Methods
ii. Health Effects
iii. Cost
2. CONCLUSION – Restatement of Thesis
Notice that this structure also requires you to discuss the points of comparison in the same order within each body paragraph. This makes it easier for the reader to follow.
For my essay, I have a lot to talk about for each point of comparison. Therefore, I’m going to choose the Point-by-Point comparison structure.
STEP SIX: Writing the first draft of the essay
Once you have brainstormed with T-Diagrams, have a thesis and a proposed structure you can work with, go ahead and write your essay. A sample essay is attached as a model for you.
Heather Meloche Page 1
ESL 2520
Comparison/Contrast Essay
“O coffee, thou dost dispel
all cares,
thou art the object of desire to the scholar.” --Arab poem.
“Send your taste buds on a journey.” --Spongebob Squarepants
(Coffee Quotes)
Picture from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee
ORGANIC COFFEE: IS IT BETTER?
Many people
love coffee. According to printed
research in the article “Speciality Coffee Statitics” on E-Importz.com,
Americans consume 400 million cups of coffee a day, which makes the U.S. the
biggest coffee consumer world-wide.
Recently, however, there have been concerns over whether coffee is
healthy or not. As with many other food
choices, consumers are becoming pickier and opting for coffee made with
organically grown beans as opposed to the “technified” beans, which are sprayed
with pesticides and grown by modern methods.
But is organic coffee any better than insecticide-treated coffee? In order to determine this, consumers should
look carefully at these two types of coffee and evaluate them based on several
aspects. Insecticide-treated coffee and organic coffee differ drastically with
regard to how the coffee beans for each are grown, what kinds of effects each
has on the health of individuals, and the cost of each type of coffee.
First, the beans for insecticide-treated coffee and those for organic coffee are grown in very different ways. According to the website article “The Grind over Sun Coffee” by David Salvesen, all coffee used to be grown very much like organic coffee is grown today. Coffee farmers gave their coffee plants minimal sunlight and grew their coffee harvests beneath layers of shade. For instance, a layer of coffee shrubs would thrive beneath a protective layer of fruit trees like Avocado or Citrus trees, which would,
MELOCHE Page 2
in turn, be protected by a layer of higher-level hardwood
trees, like the Mexican Cedar. This layering growth process gave the coffee plants only
about two hours of direct sun a day, enough to support them and to keep
unwanted pests off the plants. In
addition, the falling growth from the plants above the coffee harvest, created
a natural fertilizer that would sustain the harvest and offer future growth for
many decades. A final very important
benefit is that each layer of growth in this shaded system has its own
ecosystem of wildlife, offering space for many species of harmless but plentiful
insects and migratory birds. However, in
the 1970s, there was a push for quantity over quality, and many coffee farmers
wanted in on the money this push promised.
It resulted in the change from growing coffee in the shade to growing it
in large, open, sun-filled fields that would allow farmers to grow about four
times as many plants and, therefore, produce four times as many coffee
beans. Farmers clamored to transition
their farming practices. The problem
was, however, that with the protection and fertilization of the shading trees
gone, harmful insects started eating away at the crops. As a result, farmers had to buy expensive
pesticides, which polluted the soil and only allowed for ten to fifteen good
years of growth on a plot of land.
Today, these modern coffee farms or “technified” farms, as the coffee
industry refers to them, have driven away most of their wildlife, eroded their
soil to the point of it being useless, and created dangerous poisonous run-off
from the insecticides on any area that slopes, as most Latin American farming areas
do. In contrast, shade farmers continue
to practice the old, traditional way of farming coffee, offering a less toxic
harvest and sustaining wildlife and continued growth on their land.
The second contrasting point between coffee grown on modernized farms and organically grown coffee is the health effects it has on people. The website article, “The Effects of Chemicals Used on Coffee Crops” from David Riel states, much to the relief of coffee drinkers, that there are really no negative health effects for the consumer from insecticides used on coffee beans. his is because the process used to turn the beans into coffee grounds “burns off” the toxic chemicals before they get to the mouths of the consumers. However, this does not mean that the insecticides aren’t harming people. In contrast, the coffee farmers on “technified,” sun-grown coffee plantations and their employees, who work in countries where there is no regulatory body overseeing the health and well-being of those on the job, come into direct contact with these toxic insecticides on a daily basis. The effects of this contact are devastating on their bodies. For example, the insecticides used to combat just the coffee cherry borer, the most major pesticide threat to coffee beans currently, cause birth defects in babies born to plantation workers, neurological damage, and death. In contrast, shade-grown coffee beans only require about 5% of the insecticides of what sun-grown plants require, thereby limiting the amount of exposure to workers and farmers (Serra, Coffee and Birds), and organic beans, which are treated with no pesticides, cut out the danger of toxicity altogether.
A final point of contrast between insecticide-treated coffee and organically grown coffee is cost. While organically grown coffee producers may have great arguments in many other areas as to why consumers should purchase their products over those that require mass amounts of pesticides, these producers fall short when it comes to cost. According to the prices listed on Uncommon Grounds’ website (Organic and Shade-Grown Coffee), which tries to persuade consumers to buy organic coffee, the cost of
MELOCHE Page 3
organic is $11 to $14 a pound compared to the $6 to $12 a pound for traditionally grown coffee. While one may assume this cost is a result of the way the coffee is grown, since modernized methods produce so many more coffee beans than the shade-grown method, thus driving costs down, the price difference, in fact, comes from the cost to certify a farmer as organic. According to Salvensen’s article, the certification as organic by the agencies that oversee eligibility for it, such as the Organic Crop Improvement Association, Inc. (OCIA) in Ohio, have booklets full of standards farmers must meet before they get the organic stamp of approval. In addition, there are filing fees to try to be accepted as organic, as well as fees for annual inspections to make sure these standards are upheld. As a result, all these fees are passed on to the consumers of organic coffee, making organic coffee up to 30% more expensive than its sun-grown competitor.
In
conclusion, organic coffee growers work hard to market the negative effects on individual
health and the environment that “technified” coffee farms cause with sun-grown
coffee bean growth. However, consumers
must decide if they want to pay the extra dollars it takes to bring those extra
benefits to the world around them.
Unfortunately, on a daily basis, with life moving so fast for American
citizens, the immediate goal is often to grab that hot cup of caffeinated
beverage and get to the next destination in as little time as possible. With those quick decisions, most Americans
prefer to buy just what is cheap, quick, and tastes good, which is why
Starbucks has no organic coffee on their menu.
Tim Kern, coffee specialist with Starbucks, states, “If we’re going to
charge a premium for coffee, it must be justified in the cup” (Salvesen), and
yet, the “green” effects of organic can’t be tasted. Therefore, organic coffee, while being the
most beneficial in the grand scheme of things, is still the loser to its
cheaper, same-tasting competitor during the daily grind.
REFERENCES
“Coffee and Birds, Making the Connection.” Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign. n.d. 11, Feb. 2008. <www.shadecoffee.org/shade-coffee.cfm?id=48>
“Coffee Quotes.” Uncommon Grounds Specialty Coffees. 2006. 11, Feb. 2008. <http://www.uncommongrounds.net/trellis/Coffee-Quotes>
“Organic and Shade-Grown Coffee.” Uncommon Grounds Specialty Coffees. 2006. 11, Feb. 2008. <http://www.uncommongrounds.net/trellis/Coffee-Quotes>
Riel, David. “The Effects of Chemicals Used on Coffee Crops. Helium. n.d. 11, Feb. 2008. <http://www.helium.com/tm/276148/effects-chemicals-coffee-crops>
Salvesen, David. “The Grind Over Sun Coffee.” Smithsonian National Zoological Park. July 1996. 11, Feb. 2008. <http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/ 1996/4/suncoffee.cfm>
Serra, Richard. “The Effects of Chemicals Used on Coffee Crops.” Helium. n.d. 11, Feb. 2008. <http://www.helium.com/tm/281401/unlike-united-states-there>
“Specialty Coffee Statistics.” E-Imports. n.d. 11, Feb. 2008. <http://www.e-importz.com/Support/specialty_coffee.htm>
MLA
Format for Websites
A reference for a website should follow
this model:
Author’s last name, first name. “Title of article.” Name of
home website. Date listed, if any,
that the article was published on the site. Date you accessed the article. <URL in angled brackets>.
You may not have all of the information
asked for in the model. In that case,
skip to the next item. Authors are often
not given for websites, and the Works Cited entry then begins with the article
title.
EXAMPLE:
The following information appears at the top of this website:
PAL: Perspectives in American
Literature:
A Research and Reference Guide
An Ongoing Online Project
© Paul P. Reuben
| EMail: its4pr@charter.net |
Chapter 10: Late
Twentieth Century - Eudora Welty (1909-2001)
PAL: Perspectives in American
Literature:
|
At the end of the website, the
following date appears:
July 24, 2001
At the bottom of the printout,
you will find:
http://www.csustan.edu/English/reuben/pal/chap10/welty.html November 9, 2001
[URL] [date you accessed the article]
The entry on the Works Cited page will look like this:
Reuben, Paul P. “Chapter 10: Late Twentieth Century--Eudora
Welty.” Perspectives in American Literature: A Research and Reference Guide. 24 July 2001 . 9 Nov. 2001
<http://www.csustan.edu/English/ reuben/pal/chap10/welty.html>.
Note: If the website does not provide the date of
publication, use the abbreviation “n.d.” (“no date”) after the name of the website:
“Job Competencies, Soft Skills
and Competency-Based Performance Management.”
Corporate Perspectives, Inc. n.d. 6 Feb. 2002 .
<http://corporateperspectives.com/cbl.html>.
References in your paper will look like this:
Welty’s writing style was influenced by the Realist
writer Henry James (Reuben).
or
According
to Reuben, Welty’s writing style was influenced by Realist writer Henry James.
Note: If a website does
not give the author’s name, use the title of the article, which should be the first
item in the Works Cited entry, in your reference. Because your source is electronic, you need
not include page numbers in either the Works Cited entry or the citation. However, if paragraph or section numbers are
present, use them in your citation. It is increasingly becoming preferred that
book titles, journal and magazine titles, etc. are italicized rather than
underlined; underlining is still acceptable, but the advent of online
information sometimes makes underlining confusing. See http://www.mla.org for more information and
examples.