With rapidly expanding populations, growing industrial development, and dwindling water supplies on national and regional levels, water is fast replacing oil as the world’s most valuable resource.
TOPIC
The ILC's Draft Articles
FRAMEWORK
Problem / Solution
MAIN POINT
The DA's aren't an adequate solution to forthcoming problems between nations relating to water shortages.
A better way to do this would be to have treaties that apportion water in more flexible ways or that have contingencies for when climate change changes the landscape.
READING SUMMARY
When the passage begins, we definitely get hints of a Problem being discussed. - the first sentence alerts us that water will soon be the most prized natural resource. - the second tells us that there is increasing potential for nations to start fighting over water.
The second half of the first paragraph makes it seem like we're talking Solution: - nations have become aware of the need for legal ways to handle this forthcoming problem - recognition of the need has led the ILC to develop a treaty structure for the sake of governing international waterways
Woohoo! Solution! It's a .... treaty structure?
Not sure what that means, but we'll synthesize the 1st paragraph PROBLEM: water is going to be so scarce that countries will fight over it SOLUTION: The UN is doing something to help countries make treaties sorting out their respective rights to international waterways.
The second paragraph is all descriptive: - the Draft Articles are an attempt to ___ - the DA's are intended as ___ - They prescribe that ___
We're hearing more about the Solution, but we still haven't heard an Author's Voice yet.
The third paragraph is where we finally get an Author's Pivot: though it's a great step forward, it's inadequate because ____.
So, updating the big picture, we're thinking that we've gotten a Problem and a Solution, and now we're getting the author pushing back against the Solution.
Until proven otherwise, we'll assume the main point is either going to be the beginning of the third paragraph (critiquing the Solution) or maybe the author will propose a better Solution (in which case that would become the main point).
The fourth paragraph begins by reiterating the idea that the DA's are inadequate by telling us that they won't be flexible enough to respond to the dramatic changes in water levels described at the end of the third paragraph.
It ends by pitching out a couple better directions the author prefers: - devise treaties that apportion water more flexibly or, similarly - put contingency plans in the treaties for when climate change wreaks havoc