But...But this essay is so much like essay 1.  Isn't it the same?    
       Well, it may seem like that at first, but no, it isn't.

What is the difference between essay three and essay one?

The first essay is supposed to be a focused research essay–just comparing the data, making no arguments, giving no opinions–objective, unbiased.  Your findings should be uninfluenced by your personal position on the matter–liberal or conservative.  Facts are facts.

 A conservative or a liberal should come up with the same findings and be in agreement in such an exercise.
The 3rd essay is meant to be an argument essay in which you make a case, take a positions, and argue, using data (facts), to convince your audience of your position.
 
There is a big difference between the two, and the purpose of the exercises is to learn the difference.  The 1st essay actually gets our research and data done.  We can use that to help back up our position for the 3rd essay.
 
More research on what Kristoff says (his background, for example) is what we can add to the information literacy.
 
Some of us had difficulty keeping our personal opinions out of the 1st essay.  Again, that's one lesson we're learning.  For example, the sun is 93 million miles from earth.  The details of what it is and where has nothing to do with whether or not we "like" the sun or wish to see more or less of it, whether we want it to rise earlier or set later.  Opinions on raw data are pretty much moot.
 
FACT: "The sun is the central body of the solar system. It provides the light and energy that sustains life on earth, and its position relative to the earth's axis determines the terrestrial seasons. The sun is a star of a type known as a G2 dwarf, a sphere of hydrogen and helium 870,000 miles (1.4 million km) in diameter that obtains its energy from nuclear fusion reactions in its interior, where the temperature is about 15 million°C. The surface is a little under 6,000°C."
 
Those are data, the facts.  We're not going to fight about that.  We  can look at sources to see if they are accurate or not, but we don't take personal positions on the facts (essay 1).  We CAN  argue on what we should do with the energy of such a celestial body, and so on: leave it alone, send radioactive waste into it, weaponize it, and so on (essay 3).
 
Does that help?
Last modified: Thursday, August 11, 2016, 9:06 AM