I will pay for the following article Three Letters to the Editor. The work is to be 6 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.
The three chosen letters to the editor examples of these varied reactions coming from people who are experts in their own fields that are related or affected by Keystone XL. Since the three letters to the editor are responses to the Nocera’s column piece, The New York Times had put them all together under one heading, Pipeline Politics, Economics and Science. However, being written by different letter senders, each of these are has a distinct perspective on the issue.The first letter to the editor has the usual elements of terms of address and the subject line.
Apparently, the letter is meant for the individuals who bear the responsibility of presenting to the public detailed information regarding the issue. in this case, the Keystone XL pipeline. Aside from this, the editors are also in charge of putting in print the different reactions, opinions, and comments on the burning issues of the day. This letter to the editor, however, wishes to tell the public that Nocera has missed certain important information that should also be mentioned in his article because this could have resulted in a more objective view of the issue.
The sender did not waste space for explaining the purpose of his letter. As soon as he wrote the subject line in order to refer to the column piece written by Nocera, he immediately presented his reaction. He may not have directly expressed his criticism of Nocera’s focusing on the political aspect while leaving out other important concerns but he did raise the point that those who are in support of the Keystone projects always miss mentioning the “same major facts.”After the very first sentence, which was short but succinct, the letter sender immediately presented his supporting statements in bulleted form.
The very first bulleted point is similar to saying that the Keystone XL project should not even be considered as a major concern of the United States because it does not really benefit the consumers of oil products in the country.