2012年10月30日火曜日

discussion C

<statement of the topic>
There is a factory in an urban area and recently waste products of the factory can't be disposed. Therefore, it's  problem where to make a garbage dump in an urban area or a suberb area.

<introduction of panel members and their initial position>
Taiga: He is Russian. He lives in an urban area.
Mai: She is 25 and has two daughters. She lives in an urban area.
Chiaki: She is a Canadian and lives in an urban area. She wants to enter a university in an urban area.
Iku: He is Chinese and 42. He lives in a suberb area.
Riho: She is 60 and lives in a suberb area.

<important points of the discussion as you see it>
Three members agreed with making a garbage dump in an urban area because if the garbage dump is made in suberb, citizens in suberb have to leave their house and the factory have to pay for transportation. Two members agreed with making the garbage dump in a suberb area because if it is made in urban, many buildings have to be broke down.

<what the outcome was>
The members decided to make a garbage dump in a suberb area and a boss of the factory ensures stable living of citizens in a suberb area.

<my personal opinion>
I think there is a place in which no citizens lives in a suberb area and the garbage dump should be made in such a place. Then, the factory doesn't need to give citizens in a suberb area money for living. Also, it is a good way to offer a garbage dump in a suberb area to dispose waste products of the factory together if the garbage dump in a suberb area could.

<how effective the discussion was>
It was good that panel members had their own opinion with strong.

<how it could have been better>
I think a moderator not a panel member should have introduced panel members to citizens and said introductions of the members more slowly. It was a problem there were two moderators because citizens were very confused. Also, a moderator should not have suggested her opinion and should formed the member's opinion in the middle of discussion. In addition, some opinions changed to different ones in the middle. A panel member said there was no garbage dump, but the point changed to one that there was a garbage dump in an urban area in the end. So, they needed to decide the basic information in detail.   

2 件のコメント:

  1. Aiwa, thank you for this report. It was clear that the panel suffered from a lack of thorough preparation. As a result, their consensus was weak.

    返信削除
    返信
    1. Thank you for your comment. I expect that the next discussion will be better.

      削除