Log in
Log in
, , ,

Year 5 Reading Challenge Spring 2

Mrs Latham

Hi Year 5,

Your challenge is to read through this article (click on the link): http://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2014/aug/27/do-dams-destroy-rivers

The article is on whether dams destroy rivers – you need to read it through all the way to the end (you may need to look up any words you are unfamiliar with). This is a challenging piece, but it is an opportunity to push yourself.

BRONZE CHALLENGE:

Identify the facts and opinions in the article.

SILVER CHALLENGE:

Identify the opinions and write the alternative viewpoints for each opinion.

GOLD CHALLENGE:

List the facts present and then use these to write a balanced argument about whether dams are good thing or not. You need to explain your answer, using the facts you have listed.

Give this a really good go Year 5 – you have all made some brilliant progress this year, this is an opportunity to show it off!

14 responses to “Year 5 Reading Challenge Spring 2”

  1. Ravi P.

    Bronze:
    Facts:
    The more richer they are, the more chance they include.
    The notion that some static measure of biodiveristy is good and any chance is bad its subtantiated by naturel history.
    Opinions:
    So the IRN’S lastest database is simply that:- a collection of data (of verbily quality) with no inherent information.

  2. Ammar W.

    Fact:
    The richer they are the more they will include.

    Opinion:
    So the IRN’s latest database is simply that -a collection of data (of variable quality) with no inherent information about whether what is happening is good or bad.

    silver
    Ultimately dams change rivers.
    These are also mainly tropical or subtropical rivers.
    developing countries are, well, less developed.

  3. Meena B.

    BRONZE:

    Facts:
    The richer they are, the more chance they induce. Dams effect rivers and their natural environment.

    Opinions:
    So the IRN’s latest database is simply that -a collection of data (of variable quality) with no inherent information about whether what is happening is good or bad.

    SILVER:

    “The notion that some static measure of biodiversity is good and any change is bad is not substantiated by natural history. As an example, sedimentation as a process is the base of geology, many millennia old, many thousands of metres deep.

    “The notion that some measure of biodiversity is good and any difference that’s bad is not substantiated by history. For example, sedimentation as a process is the base of geology, which is many thousands of years old and many thousands of metres deep.

    GOLD:

    Indeed, dams do change the world and its natural environment. So do cities, roads, airports, chemical industries and agriculture.

    I disagree because dams actually store water and make sure that the rivers don’t flood. They provide water which is known as domestic (using water). Domestic is used a lot for drinking, washing, bathing and watering. So i think dams are good and they sometimes can be important to our lives and rivers.

  4. Zaynab M.

    fact
    dams effect and danger the enviroment
    opinion
    indeed dams do change the world and its natural enviroment .
    silver
    lots of people accept that there are dams which you can represent the limited practice with

  5. Adam O.

    Bronze:
    Facts:
    The degree to which they change and the negative impacts on humans and nature depend on how large they are, how they are built and managed and where they are located.

    Opinions:
    “So the IRN’s latest database is simply that:- a collection of data (of variable quality) with no inherent information about whether what is happening is good or bad.

    Silver:
    “Indeed, dams do change the world and its natural environment. So do cities, roads, airports, chemical industries and agriculture.
    ” Indeed dams actually do change on the world and its environment. So do cities and roads and agriculture.

    Gold:
    “Many of the dams built during the 20th century have proven to be river killers. Examples are numerous and notorious.”
    I disagree with this because dams actually stop rivers from flooding and save the people from floods.

  6. Sabiha K.

    Bronze
    Fact 1:
    “Dams change the world and its natural environment. So do cities, roads, airports, chemical industries and agriculture.”
    Fact 2:
    “Sedimentation as a process is the base of geology, many millennia old, many thousands of metres deep.”
    Fact 3:
    “So the IRN’s latest database is simply that:- a collection of data (of variable quality) with no inherent information about whether what is happening is good or bad.”

    Opinion 1:
    “What we need to take from this debate is the realisation that we now live in an anthropocene world, whose form is increasingly structured and sustained through human decision.”
    Opinion 2:
    “Some commentators argued today that the benefits that hydroelectricity brings to communities – cheap, clean power, jobs, tax etc – outweigh the ecological and social damage done.”
    Opinion 3:
    “Most people seem to accept that there are dams which represent best practice and can have a limited impact.”
    Silver
    From the text:
    “Most people seem to accept that there are dams which represent best practice and can have a limited impact.”
    In my own words:
    “Lots of people like to accept that there are dams that would represent the best practise and can have a good amount on the impact.”
    Gold
    From the text:
    “Dams change the world and its natural environment. So do cities, roads, airports, chemical industries and agriculture.”
    What I would say:
    “I disagree because dams are used to prevent flooding, but for the second part I would agree because there is traffic, use of electricity, for the aeroplanes there is gas emission, chemical industries would thrown into seas, rivers, ponds and streams and finally, agriculture, there could be deforestation and farmers would be kicked off there land, also defenceless creatures may die.”

  7. Muhammad D.

    Fact and opinion
    “Indeed, dams do change the world and its natural environment.
    Fact.
    So do cities, roads, airports, chemical industries and agriculture. In general, we can say that people change their environment. The richer they are, the more change they induce. In the course of that, they often destroy species; they also create species, but that is not often measured or mentioned.
    Opinion
    “The notion that some static measure of biodiversity is good and any change is bad is not substantiated by natural history. As an example, sedimentation as a process is the base of geology, many millennia old, many thousands of metres deep.

    So the IRN’s latest database is simply that:- a collection of data (of variable quality) with no inherent information about whether what is happening is good or bad.

    “What we need to take from this debate is the realisation that we now live in an anthropocene world, whose form is increasingly structured and sustained through human decision. We can take deliberate decisions about what kind of world we want to live in.

    “But that WE is not a small group of North American environmentalists and their friends. It is local and larger communities, taking decisions through their own institutions at different levels and not trying to impose their value sets on others.”

  8. Sayda A.

    bronez
    the facts are that dams do indedd destroy rivers and this effect the enviourment
    agriculater so dose roads cities and airpourts opinos believe that we as humans alos effect the lots of are rivers .
    silver julielia jonse from campaign group Water 21, says that scale is the key factor in determining biodiversity impacts of dams. this means that dams do infect the t. environmen
    people change their environment this opinions is stating humans change the environment

  9. Hudayfa A.

    Bronze:
    1. River fragmentation due to dams correlated with poor levels of water quality about 80% of the time in the basins that were studied.
    2. Mercury contamination is high in about 72% of basins that are the most highly fragmented.
    Silver:
    Some people think that dams are a good thing and some others think that they are a bad thing
    Dams are good for floods
    Gold:
    Dams are good because they stop flooding but they are also bad because they trap animals in their water supply
    Dams are

  10. Myiesha S.

    Mrs khan i dont get silver when they say write alternative viewpoints for each opinion.

    1. Mrs Khan

      Myeisha, you need to identify the opinions and say what you think your view is on it. We can look at this tomorrow.

  11. Izaan Q.

    Gold challenge :

    I think that most dams are harmful to the environment and species, as I have informed in the bronze challenge that the richer the chance they induce.

  12. Izaan Q.

    Bronze challenge :

    – Karl Mathiesen investigates whether dams are killing the world’s great rivers.

    -We can say that people change their environment. The richer they are, the more chance they induce. In the course of that, they often destroy species; they also create species, but that is not often measured or mentioned, this means that they are harming the environment but OFTENLY mentioned how harmful it could be to the environment.

    -So the IRN’s latest database is simply that:- a collection of data (of variable quality) with no inherent information about whether what is happening is good or bad

    -Ultimately dams change rivers. The degree to which they change and the negative impacts on humans and nature depend on how large they are, how they are built and managed, and where they are located. deliberate decisions about what kind of world we want to live in.

    -The biodiversity alarm bells are ringing because developing countries are, well, less developed. Therefore they have some of the least impacted river basins.

    -The ten least fragmented river systems found by the study were all located in developing countries.

    -Some commentators argued today that the benefits that hydroelectricity brings to communities – cheap, clean power, jobs, tax, etc – outweigh the ecological and social damage done.

    “Many of the dams built during the 20th century have proven to be river killers. Examples are numerous and notorious.”

    -“For example, the drought in the Horn of Africa was a disaster that cost the lives of millions, but the High Assam Dam spared Egypt from a drought that would have been truly catastrophic,” says Thorne.

    -“The good news is that nature is not only more vulnerable to dams than was realized, it’s also more resilient than we thought. So maybe the destruction of a river by damming it isn’t terminal.”

    -“An interesting study was conducted in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area between 2000–2010. This period was chosen to demonstrate the before-and-after effects of the construction of the dam. The authors of the study analyzed remotely sensed satellite data and they noted that over this period, total net primary productivity (NPP; essentially CO2 intake by plants during photosynthesis minus CO2 release during respiration) decreased by 8.0%, largely as a result of population resettlement and land inundation.

    1. Mrs Khan

      Izaan, challenges need to be done in homework books please.

Leave a Reply