The San Andreas Fault is perhaps the most dangerous and destructive fault lines in North America. Passing through one of the most populous areas of the United States, the San Andreas Fault line stretches nearly the entire western seaboard of California (Lynch). The infamous earthquake of San Francisco of 1906 is likely the reason the fault has been so ill-reputed. Furthermore, the fault has been relatively inactive and the chance for a large rupture which could span hundreds of kilometers along the fault to be extremely deadly grow increasingly higher as the time passes. Many scientists believe that small ruptures are not likely to happen but rather the extended, infrequent earthquakes (Weldon). The articles “Past and Future Earthquakes
…show more content…
Its structure is similar in some ways to “Past and Future” in the sense that its structure has the intent of delivering similar information, but in most ways, it is different. For instance, the language and discourse type is similar, with exception of numerous charts and numbered data found in “Past and Future”. The second article contains the only reference between the two in which the 1906 incident in San-Francisco, which the faults infamy likely is accredited to, is mentioned. In the first, this date is likely assumed as known information, and older earthquake activities are discussed, such as various prehistoric earthquakes, and two notable ones in 1812 and 1857(Weldon). “Areas lying along San Andreas” however, has logos geared towards a more uninformed reader, as it refers towards more modern occurrences, and explains the geological information that it is explaining, especially in the beginning of the text (Rife). Another important part of the structure is that it is written from an outside source, as in the writer is not a researcher herself. This could possibly be a reason the technicalities found in the first article are not present in the second. The author’s background and reason for writing is tied into the literacy element of ethos, or “the authority of the rhetor”( Wardle 336) as …show more content…
As mentioned above, the authors of “Past and Future” are all researchers at credible institutions such as the University of Oregon, University of Nevada, and the U.S. Geological Survey team(Weldon). From this background, the four co-authors can be expected to have a more in depth understanding of the topic at hand, and in comparison of the two articles, they do. Specific data, timelines, charts with comparative quantities, and technical dialog all are in place due to the position of the authors. The second article’s author, is involved in news reporting, as the article itself is a news report. This now aligns with the way which she portrays information as there are not the same types of dialog and discourse as found in the first. She uses reference to the works of scientists in the geological field and quotes their work. Her ethos, as a news reporter, effects the way the text communicates. Overall, the second article is much more simplistic, and has a greater appeal to a greater number of
Its structure is similar in some ways to “Past and Future” in the sense that its structure has the intent of delivering similar information, but in most ways, it is different. For instance, the language and discourse type is similar, with exception of numerous charts and numbered data found in “Past and Future”. The second article contains the only reference between the two in which the 1906 incident in San-Francisco, which the faults infamy likely is accredited to, is mentioned. In the first, this date is likely assumed as known information, and older earthquake activities are discussed, such as various prehistoric earthquakes, and two notable ones in 1812 and 1857(Weldon). “Areas lying along San Andreas” however, has logos geared towards a more uninformed reader, as it refers towards more modern occurrences, and explains the geological information that it is explaining, especially in the beginning of the text (Rife). Another important part of the structure is that it is written from an outside source, as in the writer is not a researcher herself. This could possibly be a reason the technicalities found in the first article are not present in the second. The author’s background and reason for writing is tied into the literacy element of ethos, or “the authority of the rhetor”( Wardle 336) as …show more content…
As mentioned above, the authors of “Past and Future” are all researchers at credible institutions such as the University of Oregon, University of Nevada, and the U.S. Geological Survey team(Weldon). From this background, the four co-authors can be expected to have a more in depth understanding of the topic at hand, and in comparison of the two articles, they do. Specific data, timelines, charts with comparative quantities, and technical dialog all are in place due to the position of the authors. The second article’s author, is involved in news reporting, as the article itself is a news report. This now aligns with the way which she portrays information as there are not the same types of dialog and discourse as found in the first. She uses reference to the works of scientists in the geological field and quotes their work. Her ethos, as a news reporter, effects the way the text communicates. Overall, the second article is much more simplistic, and has a greater appeal to a greater number of