Sample Astronomy Essay on Space Mining
The two articles by Osman Kavaf offer different viewpoints to space exploration with regards asteroids. The perspectives presented by the two articles are different in both form and content, and the author also takes different orientations in their representation. While reading both articles, one can make certain interpretations and thus make essential deductions that can inform decision making concerning space exploration and asteroids. In this final essay, an interpretive analysis of the two essays is conducted with the objectives of comparing and contrasting the viewpoints presented therein and also analyzing them in terms of rhetoric and persuasion capabilities. Although one of the essays clearly explains that space mining is valuable financially, the other compares it to space exploration in terms of costs. From the information presented through these two essays, it can be argued that space mining may be cheaper than sending astronauts into space and also more financially beneficial based on the value of asteroids. The two essays are similar in terms of the subject under exploration i.e. asteroids and the cost of space mining yet are different in various other ways.
The interpretive framework adopted in the analysis of the two essays previously written entails exploration of the essays to obtain an understanding of the same based on observation and interactions with their contents. The first essay is titled as “Cosmic Cornucopia” while the second essay is titled as “Rhetorical Analysis”. The two essays are first different in their form before any other considerations. Cosmic cornucopia is conducted from an explorative perspective where the author intends to understand the subject of space mining and its potential benefits. On the other hand, the second essay is a rhetorical analysis of two other essays by completely different people. As such, it is expected that the first essay includes high levels of critical thinking while the second essay is more of a report and comparison essay. As such, the second essay is bound to provide contrasting points of view on different features of asteroids and their associated costs while the first is expected to entail development of the highlighted thesis which is that asteroids have great value that can be explored on earth.
Apart from their form, the two essays also differ variably in their content. The first essay deeply valuates asteroids in a comparative manner in 1994 and 2012. From the essay, asteroids in 1994 are compared to those in 2012 in terms of elemental constituents as well as in terms of financial value. On the other hand, the second essay compares the views of different authors on the costs of space exploration. On one hand, the essay depicts the cost of bringing asteroids to astronauts as being lower in comparison to the costs of taking the astronauts into space. As such, while both essays adopt a comparative perspective in representation, the aspects compared are different between the two essays. Although the compared contents are different across the two essays, it is undeniable that good work was done in presenting the different viewpoints according to the objectives of the essay. In the first essay, the objective was undoubtedly to indicate that asteroid values change over time while the second was aimed at comparing the opinions presented by different authors.
Another difference between the two essays is that the first focuses on comparison between time frames while the second focuses on comparison between ideologies. Because of this, the first essay does not provide any contrasting views in representation of information. The information presented is only different for different years but does not contrast each other. On the other hand, the second essay, since it compares perspectives presented by different authors, contains a lot of contrasting information. For instance, one of the authors reviewed purports that taking astronauts to space can be cost effective if planned and improved equipments used. On the other hand, another author posits that taking astronauts to space is costly and NASA should instead focus on the practice of bringing asteroids to the astronauts. Based on this, each of these essays can be said to have achieved its purpose in various ways. The perspectives represented by the first essay are as obtained from an original individual source. Alternately, the second essay, being comparative, has to present divergent views and from there make a conclusion on the effectiveness of the reviewed articles in presenting their opinions.
Additionally, the two essays are also different in the portrayal of asteroids. In the first essay, asteroids are presented as sources of value both financially and in terms of mineral composition. The second essay presents a different perspective in that asteroids are depicted as being sources of hazardous substances. While both articles present views that correspond to the objectives of study, neither article gives a contrasting opinion of the asteroids definition. In the first article, asteroids are only presented as valuable without any mention of the potentially hazardous materials contained in them. This seems like an intentional omission as the article contains various details on the composition of asteroids at different times in history and it is expected that a description of the composition should also include identification of the hazardous materials contained in them. It is however difficult to determine whether there actually is an omission and whether the omission is intentional or not. In case there is no omission, the second article which purports that asteroids have harmful components albeit from an interpretive perspective may be wrong to a certain extent. This does not however make any of the findings invalid as they are effectively presented with different references.
The two articles not only presented similarities and differences in terms of content but also in terms of rhetoric. The first similarity from the rhetoric features is the use of words and phrases to present information. In both of the articles, the most crucial information is presented through the use of words and phrases. The representations are however done with different degrees of eloquence. The second article for instance portrays limited cohesion between different paragraphs in the entire paper. In some instances, the use of language makes it difficult to completely understand the intention of the author and the message intended. In the first essay however, the use of language is effective, with a higher degree of eloquence and better flow throughout the entire essay. From this comparison, it can be argued that in spite of both essays depending on words to convey essential information, the different use of language impacts how the messages represented is perceived by the reader. The use of language also comes with significant variation in form.
Rhetoric analysis involves consideration of aspects such as visual representations. In the two essays, this is another area in which stark differences are observed. In Cosmic Cornucopia, visual representations are used to depict the numerical data that is used to describe the value of asteroids. While visual representations through the use of charts creates a great impression on the readers’ perceptions and makes information easy to understand, it is not necessary in the representation of all types of data. As such, the second essay, being mainly theoretical information, does not provide a space for visual representation. Besides this, the use of visual arts also makes reading more enjoyable as it enhances comprehension. In the use of words, choice of the right words can go a long way in making the same impact that visual images can create in a reader’s mind. In view of this, it can be said that the second article does not appeal as much as the first due to lack of visuals and wrong choice of words.
For a piece of literature to be considered effective and well done, there is need that the piece should be well articulated as well as progress. This cannot be said to be the case for the second article on rhetorical analysis. Clarification can only be achieved in writing by first communicating the intent of the authored piece so that the readers can clearly determine the direction of the article. In the first article, this clarity of purpose is observable from the first paragraph and as the article is developed to its end. Besides making the article easily understandable, this clarity has also made the article easier to read and to follow through to the end. On the other hand, the second article does not provide a similar level of clarity since the objective is not lucidly explained from the beginning of the article. At the same time, the incoherence of the article, which was previously mentioned, makes it difficult to deduce from the different parts done what the objectives of the comparison were.
Although the information provided in both of the articles can be described as credible, it is also important to note that one feature of effective writing is the use of the correct structural forms in writing. Structural forms in this regard include features such as mechanical structures i.e. grammar use, punctuation and the presence of supportive arguments. In the first essay, most of these features are present and this makes the essay much more informative as it is easy to understand. On the other hand, the second essay on rhetorical analysis does not contain most of the essential features of structural forms. For instance, besides the prevalent grammatical and punctuation mistakes, the essay also misses crucial supportive information and the information provided from the analyzed articles is not presented persuasively enough.
In conclusion, it can be said that although both essays contain important information for the field of astronomy, the manner in which that information is presented is different in the two essays. The key purpose of writing any article is to persuade others to support a certain stance or belief. However, without using the right structure and sufficiently persuasive words, an article can turn out to be a boring read and thus failed to achieve its primary purpose. The second essay falls under this category in spite of the writer’s attempt to explore the study intentions and come to an overriding conclusion. On the other hand, the first essay attains its primary objective through the choice of words and visual representation.
Kavaf, Osman. Cosmic Cornucopia. 2016.
Kavaf, Osman. Rhetorical analysis. 2016.