The Future of Coal Supplies

The articles that are being compared are a secondary source on the dwindling coal supplies, a major contributor to Co2 emissions, and the articles primary source which includes more detail on the study itself. Something that separates the two articles is how the information is presented. The primary source presents exactly what happened, without an opinion until reaching the conclusion where thoughts on the study were given. The secondary source takes what the conclusion was and presents an opinion on what the author thinks about the topic. An effect of the two writing style from the two articles is the possible effect on the readers. The primary source includes a lot of complicated thoughts and information which takes a strong background in science or a lot of suffering to get through. The secondary source provides the information in a simple form that is relatively easy for the average reader to understand. The biggest difference between the two articles in the content. The primary source includes the full study from the approach to the results, including some possible scenarios and finishes with a conclusion. The secondary source takes the final conclusion of the study and summarizes and embellishes the writing, while ignoring the rest of the study.

The first thing that separated these two articles was the way that the information was presented. The primary source gave every last detail on what the study was about, how they went about researching the theory and the results that they found. This gives the reader a clear idea of what occurred and what was found. This allows the reader to form their own opinion from the data found. This is a fair representation of the authors work, and presents an unbiased analysis from the results. The secondary source took the analysis, interpreted what it said, formed an opinion on what it means and wrote an article based on one person’s analysis. In comparison the primary study had been reviewed by many people and did not give an opinion, where as the secondary source provided an opinion from one person. The primary article leaves no question as to the information provided, but the secondary article leaves a questionable reader wondering how the opinion was formed.

These articles have two very different writing styles. The primary article had a very dry but informative style of writing; the second article however provided an easy to read summary of the primary source. Most readers would likely not have the time to sit down and read every study that every researcher publishes but when provided with some main topics of interest with a short summary the reader would be more inclined to get a quick update on what is happening in the world. This leaves a conflict in the science world, reaching the reader versus presenting all the facts. A study requires lots of information to be considered as a possible fact however all of this information may be redundant, the best compromise would be a peer review summary of the article versus the non peer reviewed written one in the magazine.

The problem with the secondary articles is the opinionated writing. The secondary article presents the author’s opinion of the study as a factual summary. This leaves the readers feeling like they know what the study is really about when all they know is one person’s opinion on the results of a study. The primary article provides every last detail about the study. This means that everything is a close to a fact as possible and it has been reviewed by many other experts in the field of science that the study is related to. This doesn’t mean that these reviewers agree with an opinion, this means that the reviewers agree with the theory, how the study was conducted and the analysis of the results. The only reason to read the secondary source would be to get a second opinion on the primary study.

In conclusion both secondary and primary sources have their own separate uses in educating yourself on current topics but they provide two different kinds of information in two different formats. The primary source is good for obtaining all the facts on a specific topic or study but can be time consuming and in some cases redundant. The secondary source is a good way to get a basic summary of a study and get a second opinion on a topic. Secondary sources are a good way to discover a primary source that may interest you, instead of trying to monitor all the resent studies on a subject as that can be an overwhelming task. So the two types of sources serve their own purpose but if you require actual facts on a topic then a primary source is required. In the world of science the only way to get actual information would be to research original studies to confirm that the information was presented in an unbiased format and not as an opinion, this primarily beneficial for other researchers and students.