Part 1 Chart Copy Save And Fill Out The Compare And Cont ✓ Solved

```html

Part 1 Chart Copy, Save, and Fill Out The Compare And Cont

Part 1: Fill out the Compare and Contrast Chart based on the information provided in the two articles about travel to Mars:

  • TOPIC
  • SOURCE 1: The Case for Mars by Alexander Fisher
  • SOURCE 2: Mars—A Waste of Time and Money by Juniper Springs
  • EVIDENCE 1
  • EVIDENCE 2
  • EVIDENCE 3

Part 2: Write a paragraph that answers the following questions:

  • 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?

Read both articles and complete both parts of the assignment as directed.

Paper For Above Instructions

The debate surrounding the mission to Mars presents two contrasting viewpoints articulated by Alexander Fisher and Juniper Springs. Fisher advocates for a mission to Mars, positing that it is Earth’s best chance for colonization and emphasizing the potential technological benefits to be gained from such an endeavor. Conversely, Springs argues against immediate travel to Mars, citing the dangers and financial impracticalities of such a mission when critical issues on Earth remain unaddressed. When comparing the two articles, one can see that the authors possess opposing views on the notion of space travel to Mars, with Fisher focusing on the possibilities and advancements that could arise from the mission, while Springs highlights the risks and costs associated with it.

In terms of points of comparison, both authors discuss safety and feasibility, but they arrive at different conclusions. Fisher asserts that the health risks posed by radiation on Mars can be mitigated through technology, stating that, "Studies have shown that radiation levels on Mars are not lethal to humans." This highlights his belief in human adaptability and the possibilities of developing protective technologies. In contrast, Springs contends that these claims are overly optimistic. She mentions, "It is foolish to think a dome would be able to protect us from all of the radiation." Here, Springs emphasizes the limitations of technology and raises concerns over our current understanding of planetary safety.

Both Fisher and Springs support their arguments using distinct methods. Fisher employs a future-focused, optimistic approach, listing past technological advancements born from NASA projects to bolster his case for investment in Mars exploration. He notes inventions such as "invisible braces" and "cordless vacuums" as tangible benefits of space exploration. On the other hand, Springs' approach is more pragmatic and cautionary. She emphasizes the need to allocate resources toward pressing issues on Earth rather than venturing into space, arguing that, "that money could be better spent addressing problems here on Earth."

Regarding emotional appeal, both authors use differing strategies. Fisher leans toward appeals to logic with his focus on the benefits and technological advancements humanity could gain. He encourages support for Mars exploration by framing it as essential for the future of humanity. In contrast, Springs’ arguments largely invoke an emotional response by highlighting the dangers and ethical considerations of space travel, suggesting a sense of duty to prioritize Earth’s problems first. For instance, she points out, "Why spend money traveling to a planet that is so dangerous and far away?"

The contrast between Fisher’s optimistic vision of Mars colonization and Springs’ cautionary approach provides a rich ground for discussion. Ultimately, the necessity for a balanced perspective on the exploration of Mars is evident. An understanding of both possibilities and risks is crucial in shaping the future of space exploration. A mission to Mars could potentially yield numerous advancements, but it must also be weighed carefully against immediate needs here on Earth. It is this balance that will determine the success and morality of such endeavors.

References

```

Related Assignments