1. Full citation and abstract (include link if exists) Miaomiao Zhang, “the action on environmental protection is more urgent than argument in scientific standard, the investigation in the case of Beijing air quality monitor standard has been questioned.” Xinhua Daily, 11/03/2011. Abstract: the monitoring station from one embassy has shown that the level of Beijing air pollution reached the level of “hazardous”. However, the data from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau revealed that the air quality on that day is moderately polluted. Most people think the argument is meaningless, we should focus on what we can do to improve the air quality. 某国驻华大使馆的监测站显示北京空气污染已达“危险(hazardous)”水平,但北京市环保局同期的数据显示, 当日北京的空气污染水平为“三级轻微污染”，有网友认为,口水仗没有意义,应考虑如何行动,携手改善环境。
2. What is the main point and the purpose of the article? The article tends to explore the reason why the embassy shows a higher level of air pollution than Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau. 文章主要说明了为什么大使馆的监测数据显示的污染级别会比环保局的高。
3. Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain. China don’t have to have the same standard as the other countries in the air pollution levels. Since the weather significantly influence the air pollution level in Beijing, if we compare the previous air quality under bad weather with the situation after several regulations have been implemented, it’s easy to figure out that at least the air pollution didn’t deteriorate under bad weather. 中国不一定要和其他国家制定一样的空气质量标准。因为天气状况会极大的影响北京的空气污染状况，如果比较之前恶劣天气情况下的空气质量与实施控污计划之后的情况，很容易就发现至少空气质量至少没有恶化。
4. List the sources the author(s) use to support the claims on air pollution (i.e. scientific evidence, expert, government official, citizens, etc.). Provide names and short descriptions.
Environmental science and engineering department of Beijing university professor Zhu Tong told journalist that the Environmental Protection Bureau monitored more particles in air than the embassy.
The Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau deputy director Du Shaozhong said that we use the different rule to measure air pollution level and the monitor object is also various.
6. How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report? The disparity issue does mentioned in the article. The monitored air pollution level from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau is different from one of the embassy. The article is focus on explain why this issue happened. In general, they used different monitor standard to measure the air quality. 文章中确实提到了不一致的地方。北京环保局和某大使馆得出的空气污染程度不一样，全文主要解释了会出现了这样的问题。总的来说就是二者用的检测标准不同。
7. What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article? I understand the difference in standard to monitor air pollution will also cause the argument in society. However, the more important is to figure out the way to governance the pollution. 我理解不同的检测标准会产生社会舆论，但是更重要的则是找到治理污染的途径。
北京治污, 争标准不如快行动——北京空气质量监测科学性被质疑事件调查
记者张淼淼
新华每日 电讯/2011 年/11 月/3 日/第006 版 国内新闻
1. Full citation and abstract (include link if exists)Miaomiao Zhang, “the action on environmental protection is more urgent than argument in scientific standard, the investigation in the case of Beijing air quality monitor standard has been questioned.” Xinhua Daily, 11/03/2011.
Abstract: the monitoring station from one embassy has shown that the level of Beijing air pollution reached the level of “hazardous”. However, the data from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau revealed that the air quality on that day is moderately polluted. Most people think the argument is meaningless, we should focus on what we can do to improve the air quality.
某国驻华大使馆的监测站显示北京空气污染已达“危险(hazardous)”水平,但北京市环保局同期的数据显示, 当日北京的空气污染水平为“三级轻微污染”，有网友认为,口水仗没有意义,应考虑如何行动,携手改善环境。
2. What is the main point and the purpose of the article?
The article tends to explore the reason why the embassy shows a higher level of air pollution than Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau.
文章主要说明了为什么大使馆的监测数据显示的污染级别会比环保局的高。
3. Does the way the article is written encourage you to take sides on the issue? Explain.
China don’t have to have the same standard as the other countries in the air pollution levels. Since the weather significantly influence the air pollution level in Beijing, if we compare the previous air quality under bad weather with the situation after several regulations have been implemented, it’s easy to figure out that at least the air pollution didn’t deteriorate under bad weather.
中国不一定要和其他国家制定一样的空气质量标准。因为天气状况会极大的影响北京的空气污染状况，如果比较之前恶劣天气情况下的空气质量与实施控污计划之后的情况，很容易就发现至少空气质量至少没有恶化。
4. List the sources the author(s) use to support the claims on air pollution (i.e. scientific evidence, expert, government official, citizens, etc.). Provide names and short descriptions.
6. How (if at all) are health disparities, or other equity issues addressed in the article or report?
The disparity issue does mentioned in the article. The monitored air pollution level from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau is different from one of the embassy. The article is focus on explain why this issue happened. In general, they used different monitor standard to measure the air quality.
文章中确实提到了不一致的地方。北京环保局和某大使馆得出的空气污染程度不一样，全文主要解释了会出现了这样的问题。总的来说就是二者用的检测标准不同。
7. What three points, details or references from the article did you follow up on to advance your understanding of the issued and actors described in the article?
I understand the difference in standard to monitor air pollution will also cause the argument in society. However, the more important is to figure out the way to governance the pollution.
我理解不同的检测标准会产生社会舆论，但是更重要的则是找到治理污染的途径。