Monday, February 20, 2017

What is Summary and What is Analysis?

Beginning writers often have trouble distinguishing between summary and analysis. Remember that summary is a statement of what the writer has said. It is not an analysis or a criticism. Rather, you write the most important points using your own words.


Analysis is different. The idea of analysis is to break a written work into smaller pieces so that you can understand each piece. An analysis should answer questions such as


  • Is this article important?
  • Does the writer accomplish his or her purpose in writing it?
  • Is the logic sound or are there logical errors?
  • Are the facts accurate?
  • Are the interpretations of those facts accurate as well?
  • Does the writer use statistics or other forms of data? Are those statistics accurate?
  • Is the writer correct about anything?
  • Does the writer have a bias?
  • Is the writer appealing to emotions in an unfair way?
  • Is there new research or evidence that may have emerged since the article was written?




In the space below, I am going to discuss summary and analysis of Michael Crichton's article "Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves."  The article is found in this blog two posts below.


                   


Summary:  Crichton states that scientists predicted massive famine because of overpopulation and that this prediction was wrong.


Analysis: What you claim depends on your point of view, but sample analysis comments are:


  • Agreement: In fact, Crichton is correct; massive starvation did not occur. It would help to cite evidence for this type of argument.
  • Partial agreement: While starvation did not occur in the large numbers predicted by many scientists, many millions did die of hunger and its complications. We are not generally aware of it because it happened in the developing world and was largely invisible to us.
  • Different interpretation of the facts: massive starvation did not occur because people heeded the warnings and worked to prevent disaster by increasing food production and decreasing birth rates.
Summary: Crichton claims there is no evidence showing that cell phones are hazardous to health.


Analysis: Again, what you argue depends on your point of view, but here are a few samples:


  • Only a few studies have shown links and most of those have been done by the same small group of researchers. Thus, we cannot eliminate the possibility of bias.
  • A growing body of research done in China and Sweden indicates that cell phones may cause serious health effects.
  • Studies have underestimated the potential harm of cell phones because these studies did not control for the use of cordless phones or wireless routers, which also expose people to microwave radiation.


Note the types of arguments being made: researcher bias and design flaws in the experiment.


Summary: Crichton states that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. Early estimates indicated temperature increases of up to 30 degrees. The estimate is now 4 degrees, a very small rise.


Analysis:
  • The 4 degree figure is an average. In some places of the world, the average increase is higher; in other parts, it is lower. Therefore, a blanket average is misleading.
  • Research conducted since 2004, when the article was written, have reinforced the conclusion that global warming is indeed a serious issue.
Summary: Predicted disasters almost never happen, so why worry?


  • Often, people promoting scare stories have their own agenda--selling newspapers, for example. Therefore, one should always be skeptical of sensational stories.
  • The fact that many predicted disasters never happened is no reason to ignore them. Some disasters--such as massive, world-wide starvation didn't happen because people worked to prevent them. Others, such as 911 happened in part because politicians ignored credible threats. 








                                                           
Lisa Rayner and her husband Dan Frazier comment on the essay "Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves" by novelist Michael Crichton that appeared in Parade Magazine on Dec. 5, 2004.
Lisa Rayner:
Michael Crichton may want to delude himself as he grows older that the ecological dangers first warned about in the 1970s will never happen. However, he (and Parade magazine itself) has done a terrible disservice to humanity as a whole with his article “Let’s Stop Scaring Ourselves” in the Dec. 5 issue of Parade magazine.

His basic argument is that many of these dangers have not yet come true, therefore they never will. On the contrary, the global ecological decline is well documented and we are now 30 years closer to a possible economic collapse due to ecological problems. Furthermore, several times in the article, Crichton makes statements that are demonstrably false.

Crichton first dismisses the fears about global cooling. Is he not aware that even the Pentagon has now issued a report detailing the potential social and political consequences if global warming causes the Atlantic Gulf stream and its cold water, undersea equivalent to shut down? The paleontological record indicates that this oceanic “conveyor belt” has shut down dozens of times, each preceded by a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and each time leading to another ice age. This is geological fact, not theory. Why does Crichton believe that modern civilization is exempt from physical reality?
Crichton also dismisses the population explosion. However, tens of millions of people did starve to death between 1970 and 2000, mostly in Africa and Asia (sight unseen, those of us in rich countries can pretend they don’t count for much). Because of the work of population activists like Paul Erlich, the UN world population predictions for this century have been lowered. Birth control and education actually work!

Crichton flog’s The Club of Rome for its 1972 book The Limits to Growth. He also lies about what it said. This year, the authors of the original study have published Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Crichton would do well to read it.

Crichton asserts that the original book warns that “by 1993 we would have exhausted our supplies” of numerous minerals. This is false. No “predictions” were made. The Limits to Growth modeled data for the years 1900 to 2100, using actually data from 1900 to 1970 and basing future extrapolations on possible future trends. The computer model was provided with a range of inputs. It produced a range of curves for the peaking and eventual decline of natural resources, population, etc. Peaking is the “half-way” point for a resource, not its end. Peaking of resources was expected to begin in the early to mid-21st century.

Guess what? We are right on schedule. Here are a few bits of data about the global environment:
· Global grain production per capita peaked in 1985 and has declined every year since then. If the U.S. population doubles during this century, as it is expected to do, the U.S. will no longer produce extra grain for export to other countries by 2050.

· Global food production per capita peaked in 1990 (total calories per person). Absolute food production itself may peak as soon as 2020.

· Numerous oceanic fisheries have collapsed or are on the brink of collapse. Stocks of large predator fish have dropped by more than 90 percent since 1950.

· In the last couple of years, natural gas production has peaked in both the U.S. and North America as a whole. Now we have begun to import liquefied natural gas the way we had to begin importing oil after the U.S. peak in oil production in 1970. Natural gas may peak globally in as few as 20 years.
· Oil would have peaked globally in the mid-1990s if it were not for the severe recessions caused by the 1970s oil shocks and the efforts to increase energy efficiency and conservation jumpstarted by the Carter administration. Oil is now predicted to peak sometime before 2030 (even by the U.S. Energy Information Administration).

Basically, without an ever-growing supply of cheap oil and gas, modern civilization as we know could not exist. For example, natural gas is the source of nitrogen fertilizer — the miracle nutrient of the Green Revolution. In 2000, sustainable agriculture researcher Wes Jackson estimated that globally, petrochemically derived nitrogen was “responsible for 40 percent of the current standing crop of humans.”

Lindsey Grant, a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Population and environment wrote in a December 1997 article for a farming journal that, “Were it not for synthetic fertilizer, the richest nations could probably get by with a change of diet, substituting cereals for meat, but perhaps one-third of the people in the more crowded and land-poor third world countries would starve.”
Why is this happening? Because we have an economy that must grow exponentially — forever — to stay “healthy.” Does Crichton honestly believe that exponential growth can indeed continue indefinitely? Does Crichton understand what “exponential” means?

The rest of us would do well to realize that we are subject to the same growth limitations as all other species. The fossil fuel bonanza of the past 200 years did indeed raise human carrying capacity for a while, but that does not mean we can expand our economy and population forever.

If we choose not to reform our economy before the declines of oil and gas become severe, our economy will collapse. Dozens of civilizations have collapsed in the past, including the Roman Empire, the Mayan Empire, numerous civilizations in what is now Iraq, and so on. Collapse is not an apocalyptic vision without basis in fact. It is a demonstrated feature of complex civilizations.
Lisa Rayner is a writer in Flagstaff, Ariz. and the author of “Growing Food in the Southwest Mountains.”

Dan R. Frazier:
I was appalled at the essay by Michael Crichton published in Parade magazine on Dec. 5. The essay, titled "Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves," pointed to a long list of predicted catastrophes that never materialized. Crichton concluded that "Human beings never tire of discussing the latest report that tells us the end is near."
Crichton is quite correct about our fascination with doomsday scenarios, but I think he is too dismissive when he advocates "regarding each breathless new claim with skepticism." It is a fallacy to think that just because so many dire predictions have been averted, all dire predictions will be averted. Crichton would do well to remember the stock-broker's refrain: "Past performance is no indication of future results."
Let’s not forget that many predictions of calamity prove accurate, though such predictions often get little attention until it’s too late. One example is the attack on 9/11. An August 2001 report to the president was titled, “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
It is also worth considering how many catastrophes have been averted precisely because people took predictions about them seriously. Crichton points to a prediction that hundreds of millions of people would starve in the 70s, and notes that it never happened. But perhaps it did not happen precisely because many concerned people dedicated themselves to finding solutions. Thank god these people did not adopt the complacency Crichton seems to recommend.
Crichton also is dismissive of concerns about power lines and cell phones causing cancer, implying that humans worry too much about silly things. This is surprising coming from Crichton, who, in addition to being a novelist, holds a medical degree. He, of all people, should know that many advances in medicine began with people worrying about seemingly silly things, like nutrition, lead, and clean water.

To read the Crichton essay, visit the Parade Magazine Web site on or after Dec. 13, 2004.

Parade Magazine Article by Michael Crichton

Let's Stop Scaring Ourselves
PARADE Magazine ^ | 12/5/04 | Michael Crichton 
Posted on 12/14/2004, 9:13:54 AM by DaveLoneRanger

This year I turned 62, and I find I have acquired—along with aches and pains—a perspective on the world that I lacked as a younger person. I now recognize that for most of my life I have felt burdened by highly publicized fears that decades later did not turn out to be true.

I was reminded of this when I came across this 1972 statement about climate: “We simply cannot afford to gamble…We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who [disagree] are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.” This author wasn’t concerned about global warming. He was worried about global cooling and the coming ice age.

We’re all going to freeze! Or is it sizzle?

It may be mostly forgotten now, but back then many climate scientists shared his concern: Temperatures around the world had fallen steadily for 30 years, dropping half a degree in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. Pack ice was increasing. Glaciers were advancing. Growing seasons had shortened by two weeks in only a few years.

In 1975, Newsweek noted “ominous signs that weather patterns have begun to change…with serious political implications for just about every nation.” Scientists were predicting that “the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

But it is now clear that even as Newsweek was printing its fears, temperatures already had begun to rise. Within a decade, scientists would be decrying a global warming trend that threatened to raise temperatures as much as 30 degrees in the 21st century. Such predictions implied palm trees in Montana, and they have since been revised downward. By 1995, the UN midrange estimates were about 4 degrees over the next 100 years. Although concern about warming remains, the prospect of catastrophic change seems increasingly unlikely.

Oh no, it’s a population explosion!

Similarly, for all of my adult life, informed people have lived in continual anxiety about an exploding world population and the inevitable resulting mass starvation and environmental degradation.
In the 1960s, experts like Paul Ehrlich spoke with conviction: “In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich argued for compulsory population control if voluntary methods failed. In the 1970s, The Club of Rome (a global think tank) predicted a world population of 14 billion in the year 2030, with no end in sight.

Instead, fertility rates fell steadily. By the end of the century, they were about half what they were in 1950, with the result that many now expect world population to peak at 9 billion or so and then to decline. (It’s estimated to be about 6 billion today.)

And mass starvation never occurred either. Instead, per capita food production increased through the end of the century because of the “green revolution” resulting from increased agricultural efficiency and better seeds. Grain production increased as much as 600% per acre, bringing unprecedented crop yields around the world.

These changes were exemplified by the rise of India, which in the 1960s was widely acknowledged to be a symbol of the overpopulation disaster. Western children were chided to finish their food because of the starving children in India. By 2000, however, India had become a net exporter of grain, and Americans were worried about outsourced jobs to that nation’s highly educated workforce. Almost no one concerned about population spoke of an explosion anymore. Instead, they discussed the new problems: an aging population and a declining population.

We’re running out...of everything!

The 1970s saw the use of computers to predict future world trends. In 1972, The Club of Rome used its computers to warn us that raw materials were fast running out. By 1993 we would have exhausted our supplies of gold, mercury, tin, zinc, oil, copper, lead and natural gas. Yet 1993 came and went. We still have all these things, at prices that fluctuate but over the long term have generally declined.
What seems to be more accurate is that there is a perennial market for dire predictions of resource depletion. Human beings never tire of discussing the latest report that tells us the end is near. But, at some point, we might start regarding each breathless new claim with skepticism. I have learned to do so.

The machines are taking over!
Any catalog of false fears and counterfeit crises must include examples of the ever-present threat posed by technology. Nobody of my generation will ever forget the looming crisis of too much leisure time, an issue much discussed in the 1960s. Since machines would soon be doing all our work, we needed to learn watercolor painting and macramé to pass the time. Yet, by the end of the century, Americans were regarded as overworked, overstressed and sleepless. The crisis of leisure time had gone the way of the paperless office.

More sinister were the health threats posed by technology, such as the fears about cancer from power lines. The great power-line scare lasted more than a decade and, according to one expert, cost the nation $25 billion before many studies determined it to be false.

Ironically, 10 years later, the same magnetic fields that were formerly feared as carcinogenic now were welcomed as healthful. People attached magnets (the best ones were imported from Japan) to their legs and backs, or put magnetic pads on their mattresses, in order to experience the benefits of the same magnetic fields they previously had avoided. Magnet therapy even became a new treatment for depression.

Be very afraid!

Along with all the big fears have been dozens of lesser ones: saccharin, swine flu, cyclamates, endocrine disrupters, deodorants, electric razors, fluorescent lights, computer terminals, road rage, killer bees—the list goes on and on.

In this tradition, the association of cell phones and brain cancer has emerged as a contemporary concern, flourishing despite a lack of conclusive evidence of any direct link. I was drawn to one British study which suggested that cellular radiation actually improved brain function, but it got little publicity. And, of course, the best-documented hazard from cell phones—their use while driving—is largely ignored. (Handheld cell phones are only marginally more dangerous than speaker phones. The real danger comes from using a phone at all while driving.)

Fittingly, the century ended with one final, magnificent false fear: Y2K. For years, computer experts predicted a smorgasbord of horrors, ranging from the collapse of the stock market to the crash of airplanes. Some people withdrew their savings, sold their houses and moved to higher ground. In the end, nobody seemed to notice much of anything at all.

“I’ve seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never came to pass,” Mark Twain is supposed to have said. At this point in my life, I can only agree. So many fears have turned out to be untrue or wildly exaggerated that I no longer get so excited about the latest one. Keeping fears in perspective leads me to ignore most of the frightening things I read and hear—or at least to take them with a pillar of salt.

For a time I wondered how it would feel to be without these fears and the frantic nagging concerns at the back of my mind. Actually, it feels just fine.
I recommend it.
_________________________________________________________________________
Michael Crichton earned his medical degree in 1969 but chose to pursue a writing career rather than become a physician. He is the author of many best-selling books—including “The Andromeda Strain,” “Jurassic Park” and “Prey”—and the creator of the TV series “ER.” His new novel, “State of Fear,” will be published on Tuesday by HarperCollins.

February 20, 2017 Word of the Day and Grammar Lesson

complement

[noun kom-pluh-muh nt; verb kom-pluh-ment] 
 
noun
1.
something that completes or makes perfect:
A good wine is a complement to a good meal.
2.
the quantity or amount that completes anything:
We now have a full complement of packers.
3.
either of two parts or things needed to complete thewhole; counterpart.
4.
full quantity or amount; complete allowance.



The article below is from the College of the Sequoias Website

Difference between Analysis and Summary



Writing a summary or an analysis seems like the easiest assignments but they can be very confusing. Many students confuse and mix summary with an analysis. They sometimes know what a summary is but they also think of analysis as a summary. However, they are two different things. A summary is rewriting what the story is about, but putting it in your own words. An analysis is breaking down the reading into smaller parts and examining it. I have put together some of the common factors that each one of them include.

Summary

Writing a summary is not only limited to English classes. There are many other courses that you can take and you might have to write a summary. A summary is a report of author’s viewpoint. A summary is rewriting what you have read in your own words. One can think of the summary as the short version of the original writing. You should tell the reader what were the main and important points of the writing. Your summary should include the thesis or the main argument of the paper. In the summary, you should not include your opinion or what you think the author is trying to imply by writing it. It should only focus on what the author has written. Summary should also not include any kind of evaluation by the reader. You should not write what you think are the author’s strong or weak arguments.
One of the other important information the summary should include is the name of the book or article, the author’s name and the publication information. The publication information is when that piece of writing was first published (Date or year) and where was it published? This information usually goes in the introductory paragraph which is also going to include the thesis statement of the writing you have read.
The summary should also be formal. You should not address the author by their first name; use only their last name of the author. It is typed and usually only one paragraph depending on what you are writing about. I have only listed some of the most common factors that need to be included in the summary. Your instructor could give you a different structure they want you to follow and other guidelines.

Analysis

An analysis is breaking a large topic into smaller pieces to better understand the subject. In an analysis you are not telling the reader about the main viewpoints of the author or what the writing is about, it is examining the structure and the details of the writing. You break the story into smaller parts to understand it better. Many instructors do not want you to express your opinion about the subject discussed in the paper. You can only give your opinion on how well the author did to convince the reader.
The first paragraph should be the introductory paragraph and it should include the title, author’s name, and publication details. You can also give the reader some background information on the subject being discussed in the writing and then give the thesis statement of the paper. First paragraph can also have a short summary about the paper.
In your analysis paper, you should address the following questions:
  •  what is the main argument that the author is making and how well do they support the argument.
  •   how reliable are the sources, and the authority that the author cites to make their argument strong. 
  • An analysis paper can also include the strengths and weaknesses of the paper and how they affect the argument being made by the author.
  •  You should also examine the tools like statistics, examples or citing of an authority to analyze the author’s reasoning for writing the paper.
  •  The other points one could address in their analysis paper are does the author address the opposition’s view point and does he/she attempts to refute it. Many instructors do not want you to express your opinion about the subject discussed in the paper. You can only give your opinion on how well the author did to convince the reader. However, depending on your class level and your instructor it might be different and you might be allowed to express your opinion on the subject matter and tell whether you agree or disagree with the author.

It is very easy for many students to confuse analysis with a summary. They both have few similarities in the introductory paragraph but overall they have different structures. Most of the analyses or summaries will include many of the factors that I have listed above but you should always ask your instructors about what structure and guidelines they want you to follow. The structure and the information you put in your summary or analysis might also differ because of your class.

Editor’s note: While what Mohanjit says here is an excellent guideline as to the difference between summary and analysis, as a teacher, I’d feel a bit remiss if I didn’t mention that even with such seemingly fundamental terms as “analysis” and “summary,” teachers often have different understanding of what words mean. So, be aware that in addition to this excellent overview, your instructor may be looking for something specific in your analysis as well.

Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Sample Critical Response

In her Student Printz article entitled “USM doles out sanctions to 25 SAE men,” Cam Bonelli reports on the results of an investigation into alcohol use and alleged sexual misconduct at a fraternity party. According to a witness, a young man offered a woman party-goer a white pill. When her friends looked for her at the party, they found her semi-conscious and incoherent. Five other female students became ill after attending the party and sought treatment in the emergency room. The woman who had been drugged woke up the next morning and discovered signs of sexual assault. She reported this to the police and underwent an exam to determine whether there was physical evidence of sexual assault. In addition, a parent reported that a daughter had consumed one drink at the party and did not remember the rest of the evening. The university police and other university organizations launched an investigation. No evidence of drugs other than alcohol was found. However, the rape kit hasn’t been analyzed yet. The results of the investigation led to the discipline of 25 of the approximately 30 members of the fraternity. While no one was expelled from school, several  were expelled from the fraternity and other were placed on probation. Law enforcement officials were still deciding whether or not to press charges for sexual assault.
Bonelli’s article on SAE follows generally accepted standards of newspaper writing. She uses  an inverted pyramid style of organization, presenting the most important facts first. After presenting those facts, she offers more detail and analysis. Finally, she concludes with a summary that quotes a university official.
Although the article is generally well-written, much of the information is vague. The information is second-hand and drawn from heavily redacted reports in which the names of the alleged victims and perpetrators were deleted. The practice of concealing names of alleged victims is no doubt necessary, but one result of this policy is that no first-hand witnesses were available to be interviewed. The article also lacks interviews with members of SAE, depriving readers of the chance to hear their point of view. On the other hand, the article includes the information that five people witnessed improper actions. The fact that there are so many witnesses adds credibility to the accusations, as does the fact that a parent came forward.
One passage in this article was unclear. Bonelli reports that the university conducted an investigation and found no evidence of drugs. However, she does not include information about the type of investigation done. The article does not state whether the investigation involved interviews, searches of the fraternity house, or laboratory tests. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the validity of the charges.
This article serves an important public purpose, even though it contains limitations. It served to spark a campus-wide awareness of the problem of date rape and date-rape drugs. Many students discussed this article and shared information about how to stay safe at parties.



Words of the Day February 15

leach1

[leech] 

verb (used with object)
1.
to dissolve out soluble constituents from(ashes, soil, etc.) by percolation.
2.
to cause (water or other liquid) to percolate through something.
verb (used without object)
3.
(of ashes, soil, etc.) to undergo the action of percolating water.
4.
to percolate, as water.



leech1

[leech] 
 
noun
1.
any bloodsucking or carnivorous aquatic or terrestrial worm of the class Hirudinea, certain freshwater species of which were formerly much used in medicine for bloodletting.
2.
a person who clings to another for personal gain, especially without giving anything in return, and usually with the implication or effect of exhausting the other's resources; parasite.
3.
Archaic. an instrument used for drawing blood.
verb (used with object)
4.
to apply leeches  to, so as to bleed.
5.
to cling to and feed upon or drain, as a leech:
His relatives leeched him until his entire fortune was exhausted.

Monday, February 13, 2017

February 13 Word of the Day

mantle
[man-tl] 
Spell Syllables
noun
1.
a loose, sleeveless cloak or cape.
2.
something that covers, envelops, or conceals:
the mantle of darkness.



Mantel

or mantle

[man-tl] 

1.a construction framing the opening of a fireplace and usually covering part of the chimney breast in a moreor less decorative manner.





How to Write a Critical Response Essay

How to Write a Critical Response

SIUC Writing Center write.siuc.edu WRITING THE CRITICAL RESPONSE --adapted from Simon & Schuster Handbook for Writers, 4th edition, Writing: Invention Forma and Style by Podis & Podis, The Purposeful Writer by Donna Gorrell

 A critique is an analysis of and a commentary on another piece of writing. It generally focuses on technique as well as on content. A critical response essay (or interpretive essay or review) has two missions: to summarize a source’s main idea and to respond to the source’s main ideas with reactions based on your synthesis.

 Summarizing The first step to writing is to read actively and thoughtfully, seeking answers to the following questions as you go: 

 What are the main points, ideas, or arguments of the work (book, article, play essay, etc.)? 

 How is the work organized? 

 What evidence/support does the author give? 

 What is the primary purpose of the work? 

Analyzing (interpretation and evaluation) 

To help you generate content for your analysis, consider the following questions: 

 Does the work achieve its purpose? Fully or only partially? 

 Was the purpose worthwhile to begin with? Or was it too limited, trivial, broad, theoretical, etc.? 

 Is any of the evidence weak or insufficient? In what way? Conversely, is the evidence/support particularly effective or strong? 

 Can I supply further explanation to clarify or support any of the main points, ideas, and arguments? 

 Are there sections you don’t understand? Why? 

 Was there any area where the author offered too much or too little information? 

 Is the organization of the work an important factor? Does its organization help me understand it, hinder my understanding, or neither? 

 Is anything about the language or style noteworthy? 

Organization The length or your essay and whether you respond to a single passage or to an entire work will vary with the assignment. Regardless of length and breadth, all critical responses include the following basic elements: 

  Introduction: 

 Body:

 o Summary 

o Transition

 o Analysis: Evaluate the evidence: sufficient (enough evidence, examples), representative(large enough pool/sample), relevant(accurate correlations), accurate, claims fairly qualified 

o Transition 

o Response: base reaction on your own experience, prior knowledge, and opinions (?) 

 Conclusion:

 Documentation: Within the body, you may choose from three basic patterns of organization:


  •  write all the summary paragraphs first, followed by the analysis portion;



  •  alternate between summary and analysis paragraphs so that each paragraph of summary is followed by a critique of the summarized information;



  •  or combine a summary and critique of each idea within each paragraph of the body.