briddelldesiree67
Answered

Explore Westonci.ca, the leading Q&A site where experts provide accurate and helpful answers to all your questions. Experience the ease of finding quick and accurate answers to your questions from professionals on our platform. Get immediate and reliable solutions to your questions from a community of experienced professionals on our platform.

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.


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?

Sagot :

paynelove19

Part 2 Reflection:

1. Did the authors have similar or opposite views?

The two pieces only have one thing in common: they both concern Mars exploration. They have opposing perspectives on this issue.

Fisher believes that cloning Mars should begin as soon as feasible and sees several advantages. He believes robots cannot make as much progress in research as people, hence he advocates sending humans to explore. He denies that radiation harms the human body.

Unlike Fisher, J. Springs believes we should not send people to Mars. He believes that even if you live in a dome, you will not be safe from radiation. He thinks money should be focused on fixing critical issues on Earth, not on space exploration. Finally, he refutes Fisher's claim that space technology innovations spur technical advancement and new human-useful technologies.

2. Did the authors use the same points of comparison? Explain with examples.

a) Neither of them believes that humans should be sent to Mars.

"There are many reasons why going to Mars is important" (Fisher)

"..., now it is not [for humans] the time to go." (springs)

b) Spending money to do space exploration is analyzed by both.

"Furthermore, the technology we would need to develop to send humans to Mars would directly benefit our economy here on Earth." (On the case for mars by alexander fisher)  

"That [space research] money would be better spent addressing problems here on Earth." (springs)

c) Fisher is primarily concerned with establishing a colony on Mars as quickly as possible, while Springs is more concerned with improving technology on Earth before deploying 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." (springs)

3. Did the authors support their views in the same or different way?

Fisher focuses on the future advantages, whereas Springs focuses on the present problems that need to be fixed. Both utilize facts and statistics to support their views.

4. Did both focus most on appeals to logic or to emotion?

A. Fisher appeals to logic, but his argument is to humans' desire to conquer other worlds. He utilizes scientific information to make conclusions, but these conclusions are flawed. Regarding radiation, Fisher asserts it is not harmful to humans, ignoring the fact that it is still hazardous even if people live in a dome, and that radiation has long-term impacts on the human body. He does not believe these considerations should be addressed before sending humans to investigate the planet. Emotions override reasoning.

J. Springs uses logic to defend human health. He also points out that helpful technical innovations for humanity are not limited to space technology research, and that new appliances may be created by humans addressing local issues on Earth. Finally, he mentions the high research expenditures that may be better spent on other concerns.

Explanation:

(This is Part 2 only) Part A needs to go on separate question (to large)

Your visit means a lot to us. Don't hesitate to return for more reliable answers to any questions you may have. Thanks for stopping by. We strive to provide the best answers for all your questions. See you again soon. Stay curious and keep coming back to Westonci.ca for answers to all your burning questions.