04.02 What Do You See?
You will read two articles on the same topic and identify the different evidence that is used by each author to support the same topic. Then, you will write a reflection explaining your analysis.
View the grading rubric as you complete your work. This is your guide to a super submission.
Select 04.02 Another View.
Important: Immediately save the worksheet to your computer or drive.
Read the two articles in the worksheet.
Complete Part 1 Graphic Organizer using what you have learned in the lesson to compare and contrast the topic and the evidence used in both articles to support the topic.
Complete Part 2 Reflection by using the guiding questions to explain the similarities and differences between the articles.
Save your work to your computer or drive.
Submit your work, 04.02 Another View.
If you cannot save your worksheet, you can type the information into a document and submit.
Here is the another view worksheet
Directions: Save this worksheet. Read both articles and complete both parts.
Part One: Fill out the Compare and Contrast Chart.
Part Two: Write a paragraph how these articles compare and contrast using details from your chart.
Article 1
The Case for Mars
By Alexander Fisher
A mission to Mars should be the next step for NASA. There are many reasons why going to Mars is important. First, Mars is the most likely planet for us to colonize. No matter how expensive, we need to work on getting there as soon as possible. Furthermore, the technology that we would need to develop to send humans to Mars would directly benefit our economy here on Earth. Just look at the money-making products that have already resulted from NASA’s space efforts: invisible braces, water filters, cordless vacuums, to name just a few.
Although we have already sent robots to Mars, robots can’t take the place of humans when it comes to studying the planet. A robot may break down. Also, it takes robots much longer to cover the same amount of ground than it would a human. Think how much faster we could learn about the planet if we sent humans to work alongside the robots!
Finally, claims that there will be significant health problems for people who travel to Mars are wrong. Studies have shown that radiation levels on Mars are not lethal to humans. Sure, we would have to live in a dome at first, but over time, we could use science to change the atmosphere and make it possible to go outside, just like on Earth! The choice is clear. We need to go to Mars now!
Article 2
Mars—A Waste of Time and Money
By Juniper Springs
While it might be fun to imagine traveling to Mars one day, now is not the time to go. For one thing, it is too dangerous. The atmosphere of the planet is more carbon dioxide than oxygen, and it’s very cold. While there are claims that the radiation levels on the planet are not lethal to humans, that does not mean they aren’t dangerous. We don’t yet know what the long-term health effects will be. As of now, we do not have a solution for this problem. It is foolish to think a dome would be able to protect us from all of the radiation.
It would also be impossible to build one large enough to house as many people as would want to go. Also, going to Mars will be expensive. Why spend money traveling to a planet that is so dangerous and far away? That money could be better spent addressing problems here on Earth.
Furthermore, it is unwise to think any inventions that come about as a result of our race to Mars would make up for the cost of getting there. We are already able to send robots to Mars. It won’t be long until our technology is so advanced that a robot will be able to do the same tasks as a human. It is not necessary to go to Mars right now.
Part 1 Graphic Organizer
Fill out the Compare and Contrast Chart based on the two articles in this worksheet.
Comparison Chart. Select link for more detail.
Part 2 Reflection
Write a paragraph that answers the following questions. Be sure to use complete sentences.
Did the authors have similar or opposing views?
Did the authors use the same points of comparison? Explain with examples.
Did the authors support their views in the same or different ways?
Did both focus most on appeals to logic or to emotion?
The authors had opposing views on the topic of going to Mars. Alexander Fisher argued that going to Mars should be the next step for NASA, while Juniper Springs argued that it is a waste of time and money. Fisher used points of comparison such as the potential to colonize Mars, the economic benefits of developing the technology to send humans to Mars, and the potential to learn more about the planet with humans working alongside robots. Springs, on the other hand, focused on the dangers of going to Mars, such as the atmosphere, radiation levels, and the cost of the mission. Both authors used appeals to logic to support their views, but Fisher also used appeals to emotion by mentioning the potential to colonize Mars and the potential to learn more about the planet.
To answer the questions in Part 2 Reflection, you will need to read both articles and analyze them to identify the similarities and differences. Here's an explanation of how you can approach each question:
1. Did the authors have similar or opposing views?
To determine if the authors had similar or opposing views, you will need to analyze the main arguments of each article. Look for any statements that indicate whether the authors support or oppose the idea of going to Mars. Compare the overall tone and position of the authors to identify if they align or differ in their views.
2. Did the authors use the same points of comparison? Explain with examples.
In this question, you need to identify if the authors used similar evidence or arguments to support their respective viewpoints. Look for specific examples or claims in both articles and see if they overlap or address similar ideas. Pay attention to any common topics, facts, or comparisons used by the authors.
3. Did the authors support their views in the same or different ways?
In this question, you need to compare the methods or strategies used by the authors to support their viewpoints. Analyze the evidence, examples, or reasoning provided by each author and see if their approaches are similar or different. Look for any details or techniques used to convince the reader of their respective perspectives.
4. Did both focus most on appeals to logic or to emotion?
This question requires you to analyze the primary persuasive techniques used by the authors. Determine whether the authors relied more on logical reasoning and evidence or on emotional appeals to support their arguments. Look for specific examples or language used in each article that may indicate a focus on logic or emotion.
By carefully analyzing the articles, comparing their arguments, evidence, and persuasive techniques, you will be able to provide a well-rounded reflection answering the guiding questions. Make sure to support your responses with specific examples from both articles.
Part 1 Graphic Organizer:
Article 1 (The Case for Mars) | Article 2 (Mars—A Waste of Time and Money)
-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------
- Mars colonization is important | - Mars colonization is not necessary
- Technology development benefits economy | - Spending money on Mars is wasteful
- Humans are needed for studying the planet | - Robots can do the same tasks as humans
- Radiation levels on Mars are not lethal | - Radiation levels on Mars are dangerous
- Health problems for travelers to Mars are minimal | - Long-term health effects are unknown
Part 2 Reflection:
The authors of the two articles have opposing views on the topic of a mission to Mars. The first article, "The Case for Mars," argues that going to Mars is important and beneficial, while the second article, "Mars—A Waste of Time and Money," claims that it is too dangerous and expensive.
Both authors use some similar points of comparison, such as the debate on radiation levels on Mars and the potential health problems for travelers. However, they present different conclusions. The first article presents evidence and studies showing that radiation levels on Mars are not lethal and that health problems can be managed and overcome. On the other hand, the second article casts doubt on the safety of radiation on Mars and emphasizes the unknown long-term health effects.
The authors support their views in different ways. The first article, "The Case for Mars," provides examples of how technological advancements from space exploration have already benefited our economy, and argues that sending humans alongside robots would allow for faster learning about the planet. It appeals more to logic and practicality. The second article, "Mars—A Waste of Time and Money," focuses more on the dangers and uncertainties of Mars colonization and presents the idea that our resources could be better spent addressing problems on Earth. It appeals more to emotion and caution.
Overall, the two articles present contrasting perspectives on a mission to Mars, with different evidence and methods of support. One emphasizes the potential benefits and opportunities, while the other highlights the risks and costs involved.