Whered the Resources GO!

Primary Source:
http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/2009-05Hall0327.pdf
Secondary Source:
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48751

With higher population, come more resources being used: where will we get those resources if they can’t be renewed? The article titled Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil was written by John W. Day, Jr., and was published Apr 24 2009. The author argues that overpopulation is a pressing issue and the world leaders are not giving it the attention it deserves, and with higher population there are fewer resources to be distributed. Day has retrieved his information from a journal under the same title by Charles A. S. Hall, which was published just months before in May 2009. The overall idea of both articles is very similar but the way in which the information is delivered is different. Differences can be seen in content, argument structure and the vocabulary that the authors choose to use.

The content difference is easily seen when comparing the two articles. The first aspect the reader notices is that the primary article is much longer, which gives the impression that it will be more in depth. The secondary article is nearly an eighth the length of the primary. As you read further into the articles it’s seen that the primary article further dissects and explains each point. The high detail can be seen, when Hall writes “These various perspectives on the limits to growth seemed to be fulfilled in 1973 when, during the first energy crisis, the price of oil increased from $3.50 to more than $12 a barrel. Gasoline increased from less than $0.30 to $0.65 per gallon in a few weeks while available supplies declined” (Hall 2009). Hall explains that as the resources diminish the cost to get those same resources will increase drastically; history can be seen repeating itself now with the same gas price hikes. In addition to the statistical data Hall includes graphs and diagrams to prove his points. In the secondary however, the author is much more vague with the information he includes. Day is able to prove a point without any data when he writes “the limits-to-growth model was a colossal failure, since obviously its predictions of extreme pollution and population decline have not come true” (Day 2009). He is able to prove his point by being very direct and not leaving any room for speculation. Hall’s article covers all angles of the argument and is more in depth, while Day’s article is to the point and includes just enough information to prove his point.

The two articles have a very different format in which they are written. The reasoning behind this is because it will attract different groups of readers. The secondary article flows nicely between claims while the primary, sections and isolates a group of claims. In order to get the reader interested the secondary article is written like a story that floats from claim to claim. On the other hand the primary source is extremely organized to give it a professional appearance. The primary article is sectioned to make it easy for the reader to know what the author is explaining. Both articles use a format that applies to the group of readers it’s written for. Closely related to the format, the writing style also helps attract a particular audience.

The writing style that the author chooses is directly partnered, with the readers who the article is anticipated to be read by. There is a large difference between the writing style of the primary and secondary article. Hall’s article has a very sophisticated writing style; it is meant to attract readers who are very knowledgeable in the subject. He uses a large vocabulary that a person who is uneducated in the subject most likely would not understand. He also is very thorough in his explanations, so that he does not put himself at risk of being criticized during peer-editing. Hall’s work is very factual to ensure that his claims are well proven and will not be questioned. The secondary article is written differently. Day’s writing style consists of a smaller vocabulary, with catchy lines in order to catch the reader’s attention. Day’s audiences are readers who may not have great background knowledge about the subject, but are interested by it. With a small vocabulary the readers are less likely to be confused, and more likely to stay interested. Day uses appealing words to spike the interest of the reader, this can be seen when Day writes “Thus a key issue for the future is the degree to which fossil and other fuels will continue to be abundant and cheap” (Day 2009). By uses word like cheap and abundant it keeps the mind from wondering, because in trying times like this people are always trying to save money. If Day can use words to allure the reader they will continue to be interested in the article. He is also very direct and convincing so that the readers will not question what he claims. Both author’s use different styles of writing in their articles, and they both have strengths and weakens that are unavoidable.

Both articles have weaknesses and strengths that limit and strengthen the authors’ argument. The primary article is extremely in depth covering all angles of the argument, making it a lot more credible. The primary however has the weaknesses that it is much longer then the secondary and uses big words that could confuse some readers. The secondary article is not perfect either, it is shorter making it a quicker read and it uses small catchy phrases that keep the reader interested. Yet it fails to include as much factual evidence to back up what the author claims. Both articles have strengths and weaknesses, but it all depends who it is meant to be read by.

Primary and secondary articles are much different from each other. They differ in a number of ways including writing style, content and word choice. This is because they are meant to be read by two different audiences. Both articles prove a common claim; the only difference is how the information is delivered.

References

· Day, J.W. (2009, April 24). Revisiting the Limits to Growth after peak oil. Retrieved from http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48751
· Hall, C. A. S. (2009). Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil. American Scientist, 97. Retrieved from http://www.esf.edu/efb/hall/2009-05Hall0327.pdf