The environmental topic discussed in my sources was the growing garbage patches found in the oceans, and more specifically the recently discovered garbage patch in the Atlantic Ocean. The primary source, a journal, and the secondary source, a magazine article, both explain the cause and possible effects of the Atlantic garbage patch. Basically, the garbage patch consists of billions of small plastic pieces that have accumulated together and extends “roughly the distance from Cuba to Virginia” (Lovett, 4). The majority of the plastic pieces came from open landfills and ocean litter, and although the makeup of the garbage patches are known, the consequences are unknown. It is assumed however that the plastic will cause harm to marine life, including ingestion of the plastic by animals or the release of toxins from certain plastics. The deterioration or destruction of the garbage patch is unknown at the moment.
The magazine article, “Huge Garbage Patch Found in Atlantic Too” written by Richard A. Lovett for National Geographic News was my secondary source. The article explained the results from different research conducted on the garbage patches. The journal, “The Dirt on Ocean Garbage Patches” written by Jocelyn Kaiser for Science magazine was my primary source. In “Huge Garbage Patch Found in Atlantic Too”, the vocabulary and sentence structure is simpler. The paragraphs are also shorter, and short statement quotes by a variety of sources are frequent. “The Dirt on Ocean Garbage Patches” on the other hand gives more detail and specificities, including background information and how the research and results were conducted. The journal also focuses more on the cause and effect of the garbage patch than the article does.
Similarities between the article and journal, or rather the primary and secondary source, include answering the necessary questions of who, what, when, where, why, and how. They are both informative pieces of writing.
There are obvious differences between the primary and secondary sources. In the primary source, there are more facts present. It also explains the scientific discoveries and previous research based on the garbage patches. The journal also draws conclusions based on the researched facts. In the secondary source, a more general and shorter interpretation of the garbage patches is presented. There are fewer facts involved and more sources are used compared to the primary source.
In terms of the strengths of claims in the primary and secondary sources, the primary source seems to be more believable. This would be due to the amount of facts, citations, and research involved in the primary source. The primary source also tends to quote one source while the secondary source uses a variety without specific citation (ie. “scientists say…”). In using one main source to support the author of the journal’s claim, the author can provide more detail of why their main source is important, which can convince the reader of the legitimacy of that source. All of these factors give the primary source a stronger claim than the secondary source.
In terms of the limitations in each source, the secondary source has more limitations than the primary source. The secondary source was more of an interpretation of the information given from the primary source. Because the primary source presented the results of the research done on the garbage patches, it was able to cover more of the topic and give more detail. The secondary source was more limited because it was just an interpretation and analysis of the research included in the primary source.
In conclusion, I found that the main difference between primary and secondary sources were that primary sources provided a more detailed and scientific explanation of results, while secondary sources provided a general idea of the meaning of the results in a more comprehendible manner. The primary source seemed to make a stronger claim than the secondary source due to its one main source used for research citations (whereas the secondary used a variety and often did not specify its source). The primary source was more convincing and believable; however I felt the secondary source presented the analysis of the results from the primary source in a simpler and more general manner which also made it more interesting to read.
“The Dirt on Ocean Garbage Patches” by Jocelyn Kaiser, Science
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100302-new-ocean-trash-garbage-patch/
“Huge Garbage Patch Found in Atlantic Too” by Richard A. Lovett, National Geographic News
No comments:
Post a Comment