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)