Melting Arctic, Missing Species

David Hillier (0719575)
Blog Assignment #1
September 23, 2010

For the comparison of primary and secondary sources I have chosen two interesting pieces of writing. I have chosen Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bears by Shaye Wolf as a primary source, and Arctic Warms, Sea Ice Shrinks, Extinction Grows by Environment News Service as a secondary source. Both sources concern the rapid change the Arctic is experiencing and how it is not only affecting polar bears, but a multitude of other Arctic species. Each of these sources provides a compelling plea concerning climate change; however, some tactics are better than others. It is seen that because these are two different types of sources, different strategies are utilized in expressing the same information. I will provide an analysis of these differences.

The first fairly obvious difference is in length. By simply looking at the two sources you can see how the primary source is much longer. Length is not merely a superficial observation; length has substantial repercussions on content. For example, a primary source tends to have much more detail; it elaborates and gives better descriptions. This is not seen with the secondary source. The secondary source takes two to three lines for each topic in the piece, in this format there is very little room for elaboration and explanation. Although the secondary source, on its own, is useful it does not address all of the relevant facts presented by Wolf. These omissions are expected in a secondary source. In the primary source, the author spends at least a page per species that is being affected by the changes in the arctic. It explains the species itself, how it is affected, why, and what could happen to it. Comparatively, the secondary source wastes very little space on details. However, length and detail is dependent on the writing format of the source.

Both of these sources present information in a different fashion. That is, the primary source is a formal report with stats, figures and analysis whereas the secondary source is usually, and is in this case, an article. Articles are made to be brief. They are created as quick summaries of information for people to read and understand easily. Newspaper or magazine articles never contain copious amounts of raw data or proof and this has an impact on the effectiveness of their argument. A piece of writing with more proof will likely have a much better argument. This extra detail and proof is also significant for individuals who are conducting research. For instance, if a student needs information for a project or an assignment, they will find more facts and data using a primary source as opposed to a secondary source to form their own opinions and arguments. A mountain of usable data and arguments is very effective for research.

On the other hand, some individuals can become overwhelmed when a piece of writing is too long or monotonous. At times, primary resources can be seen as tedious and repetitive. When looking looking to discover information quickly, secondary sources are perfect. In this light, the target audience of each piece is different. The vocabulary and explanations in primary sources can be a little more advanced as it is generally aimed at people who already have a background in the subject being discussed or for others within the academic community. For some, elaborate descriptions add excess content and blur the focus of the paper. Secondary sources are geared toward people with less background in the subject. It is essentially a question of is less more, or is more less? And it really depends on the reader and what they are looking for.

Another thing that is dependent upon the reader is how they interpret connections and elaborations to other sources. The secondary source frequently acknowledges additional information or topics that are not found in the primary source. Furthermore, the secondary source offers an opinion on the topic and comes to a conclusion. When the source is an article for example, it can cover a multitude of topics and have a larger range of data. This is opposed to the primary source which covers one specific topic very thoroughly. Essentially, a secondary source makes allowances for interpretation; it gives the writer the freedom to create a symphony on the topic by including all different sources of information. A primary source is generally more concerned with proving a hypothesis whereas a secondary source wants to share information and spread a message.

Both of the sources that have been analyzed display features that can strengthen and weaken their arguments. Things such as detail, length, and elaboration have all been observed and evaluated. It has also been seen that much of the difference between primary and secondary sources depends upon the reader and what they are looking for. These observations address the comparison and contrast of primary and secondary sources as a general rule. Either way, both sources present a phenomenal way to spread the green message.

Environment News Service. Arctic warms, sea ice shrinks, extinction risk grows. Retreived September 14, 2010, from
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2010/2010-09-14-01.html

Wolf, shaye. (2010, September). Center for Biological Diversity. Extinction: it's not just the polar bears. Retreived from
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/the_arctic_meltdown/ pdfs/ArcticExtinctionReport_Final.pdf