Comparative Analysis

Point-by-Point:

Intro:

Imagine that the sole decision to save an entire species was in your hands. That the survival of thousands depended on your simple decision to say “Yes, their existence is worthy of investing in to,” and supporting that choice by taking action and somehow find a way to protect them from the harsh changing world that is our planet. Despite the common belief that only particular environmentalists and philanthropists hold that much power, every person who utilizes natural resources, produces some amount of money that trickles into tax reserves, and even decides to relieve themselves in the forest when lacking a restroom holds the same amount of control, possibly  more. In this day and age, people nonchalantly go about their day in their own bubble, mentally secluded from the world outside the borders of their homes, offices, institutions, etc. Yet, they do not realize the weight of their existence and how it plays such an important role in the lives of others-both human and otherwise. It has therefore become the task of many to bring awareness about the effects of human decisions and the toll it has taken on thousands of species, regardless of the intentionality. As a result of being recognized writers who discuss science and the conservation of nature, both T. DeLene Beeland and Michelle Nijhuis   saw an opportunity to aid in this world wide effort by allowing their readers to explore this topic more in-depth through their articles, “Saving Ethiopia’s Church Forest” and “Which Species Will Live?” respectively.  To break through the pseudoscience that is fed to the public non-stop, both these articles have utilized similar methods, including the appliance of visual rhetoric,  analysis of how these 2 scenarios affect the planet overall, and empathy as well as pathos, to further assess the situation and portray how vital it is that they gain support on these matters. By doing this, both writers make a stronger standing for the rights that species in this world should have, and yet don’t as a result of lacking a voice when it comes to their dwindling populations.

1. Both articles have a context which includes the endangerment of a species, or in this case a number of them, that are at risk because of decisions humans have made. Nijhuis article mostly makes the setting the conference room where the scientists and researchers make the decisions. Beeland rather takes the audience on a journey to Ethiopia and depends on the help of the people who live there to increase the support and awareness of the deforestation, instead a small group of “elites” in the science field who control all the resources used to save such species.
2. Each one tends to motivate the reader in hopes that the audience will develop an interest in how important it is that our existence affects others. With an interest comes the desire to want to help the cause by somehow helping: either by coming up with a more efficient way to save them, or volunteering in the publicity of this topic as the authors/researches have. Nijhuis seems to simply want to persuade her audience while Beeland actually wants to educate hers- through technology and letting the people actually experience an excursion in her field of study.

3. Both have an application appeal :

a. Beeland’s would be that the soil erosion rate would decrease in Ethiopia and also preserve a lot of biodiversity.

b. Nijhuis had a fairly obvious benefit of saving every animal that we could possibly save, as it would maintain a balance of nature in the future, as well as allow many species to escape extinction.

–Yet, Beeland’s article utilizes the wonder appeal to convey the joy the people have in knowing how they will be saving their “houses of worship.” Nijhuis uses the comparison adaptation to compare several methods that have been used so far to try and solve the bias of choosing particular animals based on their specific traits/functions in nature.

4. Both articles take time to separate discussion regarding the scenarios in which the species are going through, and then further along in the essay is when they assess the actions of humans- possibly to gain some empathy from the reader as they imagine the loss of their favorite animal or a region’s resources, as well as their religion. Although this is true, the way they each go about their methods of representation differ overall.

a. Beeland: uses videos and a bit of narration as she finds herself in Ethiopia to allow the audience to see how Ethiopians are affecting their own surroundings –by allowing the forest to play such a leading role in their life, and further, their resources as a people.

b. Nijhuis: explains the background of how a document had affected so much of the economy, as well as the process of how animals may be chosen as the lucky few who have the support of many environmentalists and philanthropists.

5. Both utilize pathos

a. Beeland uses the reaction she had from the Ethiopian researcher who just wanted to increase the trees that he had grown up around when he was younger- to save his country’s forests.

b. Nijhuis mentions the emotional hindrance making such decisions can be when deciding the fate of an entire species. Both characters broke down as they really thought about the problems at hand.

Conclusion:

Through their use of prose, structure, visual rhetoric, and various adaptations, Beeland and Nijhuis have both managed to deconstruct the conservation of nature for eager eyes to witness…

“The out- back” of our backyard?

With certain forms of  technology being a relatively new adaptation to the way in which humans communicate with one another, the ways in which authors manage to persuade their readers has also been altered over the years in hopes of being able to maintain some sense of allure for the audience at hand.  Similarly, the authors of the articles “Man discovers a new life-form at a South African truck stop” as well as “Saving Ethiopia’s Church Forests”, Rob Dunn and T. Delene Beeland respectively,  try to attain the same goal of persuasive writing while also acknowledging the use of technology and media that researchers use to help promote benefits of their research to the public. Though rather ambiguous in this light,  the two articles part ways when it boils down to the application of the information and the ways in which it can be implicated into the grander scheme of a project that seems more crucial to a particular area.

Throughout Rob Dunn’s article, the points that are relative to his research as well as his trips are acknowledged in a narrative fashion as he describes his adventures to an audience who might enjoy a short story about excursions around the world, and/or fossils. He reveals the main character Oliver  Zompro, a German biologist, as just another person one may see on the street, but is far different than the usual by stander seen drinking a late and doing a crossword puzzle at Starbucks. With simple language, and yet clear depictions of his worth to the science world, Dunn proves how unique Zompro’s hobbies are- especially when he discovers a new species that has been right under everyone’s nose despite its “most hypothesized home being the fossil section of a museum. Considering the unlikelihood of this animal still surviving after all this time, Dunn provides the background of the newly named creature as well as used a bit of narration as he tells the two stories-the first having to deal with the traveling to the remote location to find the insects and the truck stop incident that happened not so long after. He uses very simple prose so that even the simplest of readers should be able to understand the gist of the article. He also uses the common activity of stopping at a gas station/truck stop, which is common for anyone who has driven for long distances, to portray how easy it could be to discover a new species if one takes time to note that we do not know most animals on this Earth. To fill in the interest gap between himself and his readers, he uses the picture of the isolated area to continue holding the readers interest. Showing the picture of this raised “island” above a desert that goes as far as the eyes can see makes the reader wonder if the explorers did actually make the journey a successful one and therefore urges the audience to continue reading to find out what happens next. Discussing what happened after the discovery of the promising species happens to do this as well – for example, letting the reader know that they began to complain,how  unpleasant thetrip became, and even the unfortunate event  of one person who broke his ankle and then was stung by a scorpion. No matter the pain they endured though, this finding was more precious than gold in their eyes. One could reasonably imply such a response from the text: “They looked in holes. But the truth was that while there were miles of desert there were not really that many places to look. After a whole day nothing had been found, not a single clue. Then things changed. Someone turned a leaf and under it was, lo and behold, a single individual (see photo). It hung there as though it had been waiting for centuries. Soon there were others. By the end of a week, thirty Mantophasmatodes had been collected, observed and fawned over. No one mentioned the heat. No one complained about anything. A few of these serious scientists began, uncontrollably, to smile.” Even with the being outside of their comfort zone in the hot sun of this raised, desolate location, the success of their trip had made it all worth it.

Beeland’s article was much more general in the scope of the welfare of an entire country, rather than the notification of the existence of  one species. This article, unlike its counterpart, uses quite a bit of problem and solution as there are multiple examples of how they are faced with a problem and further find ways and means to solve it ( showcasing problem to 100 priests, toilets, cease use of trees for so many items, etc.) With the dwindling homes of so much biodiversity of the country being the problem at hand, to educate people in the reasons of why the forests of Ethiopia are eradicating as well as why it is important that we preserve them seemed like a major priority – so that the people who are also using the forests for their own needs can have some idea of what they are doing to the soil beneath their feet. It also tries to persuade people to act with pictures of the areas and how much deforestation has occurred as well as with logos (statistics). They also manage to persuade with pathos, as they discuss the Ethiopian forest researcher who wept in frustration when the topic of the forests in his country came up.

While Dunn had portrayed his article in a simple manner through prose, Beeland depicted  her article through the eyes of they children they tried to educate.  They try to communicate science to the public and actively engage children by actively live streaming videos of the field work back to the museum where Lowman started a new job as the director of the Nature Research Center at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. This allowed them to get the attention and help of local children who had watched and later aided in collecting the team’s specimens for research.  She used pictures to depict the message – though some had never seen a computer before- to the 100 priests that were shocked when actually seeing images of the decreasing forests. This spoke volumes to them because the amount of trees surrounding their churches symbolized ho w much they appreciate it since “the tree canopy prevents the prayers from being lost to the sky.” Not all of this task seemed arduous to the people when they considered their lives without the church forests and further realized that they’d have to change their ways if they wanted to protect their houses of worship.  With the help of the North Carolina Naturalist, she is able to describe an experience  filled with surprise and joy more fully with this excerpt: “Armed with our nets and ropes and vials, we attracted a large swatch of children who watched our every move and marveled at the six- legged creatures swept from the foliage. Despite the language barriers, we all laughed when ants fell on our heads, and shrieked with joy when a purple beetle appeared on the surface of our collecting tray.”

Nature’s Appeal

The world around us, no matter how advanced we think we are, is constantly changing and filled with the unknown. Writers such as Rob Dunn and T. Beeland certainly believe this is true. As writers who promote the wonders of science, it is their job to inform the public about the growing world. Both writers concentrate particularly on being aware about wildlife. The writers caution us to stop and look around, absorbing nature as it is and how it could be. Although the writers may share the same beliefs, their articles, “Man discovers a new life-form at a South African truck stop” and “Saving Ethiopia’s “Church Forests”” accomplish their goals in different manners.

Both Beeland and Dunn publish their articles on a similar platform, a science-based website filled with articles for the curious reader. The articles used adaption by narration, where both authors followed a chronological, easy-to-comprehend storyline. Although both articles were adaption by narration, the type of article they publish differs. Beeland publishes an article that resembles an exposition while Dunn’s article resembles a narrative. Beeland’s exposition accomplishes two main purposes: to inform and to enlighten. The reader is able to learn about the decline of the Ethiopian forests, the attitude of the people, and other aspects of Ethiopia that were not known to the reader. On the other hand, Dunn’s narrative informed and entertained. The flow of the article resembled an engaging storyline, (“Then, one day, things changed”) while informing the reader about the accomplishments of the biologist Oliver Zompro and Mike Picker.

Since the readers of Beeland’s and Dunn’s audiences were similar, both showing some interest in science, their knowledge gap and interest gap resemble each other closely. Since the platform was electronic, the writers can assume that the articles would still receive an audience with various degrees of knowledge and interest, from research-scientist to a teen beginning to show interest in science. The articles close the knowledge gap similarly by defining terms, such as Beeland’s definition of a Coptic forest and Dunn’s definition of an order. The interest gap was closed by writing the article in a way that would be easy to comprehend by any reader. The familiar chronological format of both articles would capture the reader’s attention through interesting characters and events. Although the reader may not think that the topics were interesting, the format was more accessible for a wide audience. Both articles were filled with pictures which made the article seem visually more appealing to the reader.

The use of Aristotelian appeals differs between the two articles. Beeland is an independent science writer who was a guest for PLOS. Dunn is a faculty member at North Carolina State University. Although both reputations differ greatly, ethos was not heavily emphasized in the two articles. Beeland relied more heavily on logos than Dunn, having her article backed up by quotations from various types of credible people. Dunn relied more on pathos than any other appeal. His diction attempted to capture the reader’s attention and keep them on their toes.

Both articles tried to appeal to the reader’s wonder. The act of informing the reader about the unknown would pull the reader in, quenching his or her curiosity, especially that of a science reader. The readers are left knowing more than they did before reading the article.

The endings of the article also leave the reader wanting more. Beeland finishes off with this uncertain future of Ethiopia, one that the reader can help with. Dunn leaves the reader with a request to comb every nook and cranny for a new discovery. While Dunn recreates the mysterious appeal and power of nature, Beeland appeals to the reader’s instinct to preserve it.

Comparative Analysis

The main part of these two articles describes natural and scientific researches. One research in the article “Saving Ethiopia’s ‘Church Forests’” examines the condition of “church forest”, while the other in article “Man Discovers a New Life-Form at a South African Truck stop” verifies a new finding. Both articles use combinations of narrative, description and exposition modes. But the purposes are different. The article “Saving Ethiopia’s ‘Church Forests’” aims at informing readers a research team’s endeavor to save “church forests”. The article “Man discovers a new life-form at a South African Truck Stop” is to tell us a story about a German biologist who discovered a living fossil, but at the end of the article, the author encourages readers to make our own discoveries. This part seems to be a persuasion.

At the first glance, readers may not be familiar with “church forests”. Taking this fact into consideration, the author uses almost five paragraphs to provide readers with necessary background like what does “church forests” mean in Ethiopian Christian, the size, the location and current situations. Thus readers can keep reading without any confusion. However, few technicalities get fully explained in the article “Saving Ethiopia’s ‘Church Forests’”. When it talks about “an order is one of the big categories of life”, the author just simply says “ a big branch on evolution’s tree”. This can be counted as a paraphrase rather than a perfect explanation. We can know the reason by checking where it was posted. Scientific American, a kind of professional website spreading science, post articles to those who have already had some scientific knowledge. Abundant explanation here is unnecessary.

Multimedia which is an important tool in both articles helps readers know better about two researches. But the importance of it is different in these two articles. The article “Saving Ethiopia’s ‘Church Forests’” inserts three videos to account for the process of the research. Even though readers do not have time or patience to finish the whole article, they can have a sketchy understanding of the process. The time of all three videos amounts to only two minutes. In the article “Man discovers a new life-form at a South African truck stop”, we do find some images, but they serves little to explain something to readers. Most of them serve to reduce the boringness of the article.