PB2A

“Variation in the tail length of non-avian dinosaurs” and “Investigation of Expert Systems”; both look similar don’t they? A few words to summarize these titles: long, boring, and uninteresting. These are the thoughts of most when they first read titles like these and they can assume that the genre they belong too is also boring. However, similarities can only go so far before dissimilarities begin to surface. While both of the pieces have similar titles and seem to belong to the same the genre they are different from one another. What most do not understand however, is that two very similar articles can also be very different.

One can assume that the two articles based on their titles are similar and belong to the same genre. That assumption would be correct since both pieces follow the conventions of the scientific article genre. First off, both articles have titles that give the audience an idea of what the article is about. Both articles also have an abstract which gives of a brief description of what is inside the article, essentially a pre-introduction. The articles also have introductions which introduces the topic and experiment as well as the purpose of doing the experiment. Both pieces also have section which describe the methods they used while performing the experiment. Both pieces then give the results of the experiment and end with a conclusion that sums up the paper and experiment. Another similarity between the two is that both follow a similar structure with starting with an abstract, followed by an introduction, then there is a method and implementation section, followed by the results and ending with a conclusion.  Both articles have the same purpose which is to inform their audiences about their topic. The tone of the pieces is professional and informative. The pieces also have a similar page where the references and cited works are listed.

While the articles have their similarities they also have dissimilarities which sets the two pieces apart. For example, the scholarly piece gives diagrams and tables while still in the introduction. The SCIgen piece on the other hand does not provide diagrams until the methods section. Another difference is that the SCIgen piece has framework, implementation, and evaluation sections while the scholarly piece does not. The audiences for both pieces are also different the SCIgen piece is intended for an audience interested in computers, while the scholarly piece is intended for audience interested in dinosaurs. Another major difference is the content of the pieces. The SCIgen piece is filled with utter nonsense but it falls under the scientific article genre because it follows the conventions and framework. The scholarly piece contains factual information on non-avian dinosaur tail lengths. The conventions of both pieces are similar but both pieces contain parts that the other does not. The scholarly piece has a discussion section but the SCigen piece does not.

One aspect I believe as one of the most important in the scholarly piece is the writers explanations and analysis. The writer will make a statement then proceed to provide support for their statements may it be in the form of quotes from other sources or numerical figures, then they explain the statement and its support. This is important because if an audience member is not well versed in the topic the explanation or the writer’s statements and the information provided can help an audience member better understand what the writer is attempting to say. The analysis and support is also very important because depending on how well the information is analyzed, the article can become more credible and accepted. Another very important aspect of the scholarly piece is the discussion section of the piece. This section connects all the information within the article then talks about it. It also gives answers to question that the audience may have concerning the information within the piece. It also, presents different ideas and sources that give support to the writer’s work.  This is very important because it makes the article clearer as well as increasing its credibility.

These two pieces have similar titles, “Variation in the tail length of non-avian dinosaurs” and “Investigation of Expert Systems” in that both allow readers to assume their genre. While the may belong to the same genre both pieces are different as much as they are alike. Both pieces contain aspects and features that make them alike but also have things that set them apart. The scholarly piece has aspects that differentiate themselves from the rest because they do more for the article and thus are more important. Yet again, two pieces one scholarly and the other utter nonsense, both with very, very boring titles.