St. Fleur, Nicholas. "In the Indian Ocean, Fragments of
a Continent Where They Should Not Be." New York Times. N.p., 3
Feb. 2017. Web. 7 Feb. 2017.
Geologists
have recently discovered a lost continent beneath the Indian Ocean, now being
called Mauritia, named for the island under which it rests. The continent is
buried beneath millions’ years worth of volcanic material. However, it is not a
continent in the conventional sense of the word. Researcher Lewis D. Ashwal
suggested “it’s a continent in the geological sense, not in the geographical
one.” Perhaps the terms micro continent or continental fragment are more suited
to describe Mauritia. Researchers hypothesize that Mauritia split from Pangea,
Earth’s former supercontinent, but was blanketed in lava when a volcano in the
ocean erupted, creating an island called Mauritius. This hypothesis is based on
the presence of zircon on Mauritius. Zircon contains radioactive material,
allowing geologists to determine its age. Though the island is thought to be
nine million years old and the crust beneath it roughly 200 million years old,
the zircon crystals found on the island are three billion years old, suggesting
the presence of a continent beneath the island. A volcanic eruption from the
Earth’s mantle likely lifted zircon flakes from Mauritia’s continental crust
onto the surface of the island of Mauritius.
This
article is quite relevant to the scientific community. This discovery gives a
better indication as to our development from the supercontinent Pangaea.
Furthermore, additional discoveries made regarding Mauritia can provide more biological
and geological insight, as the remains of the continent will likely be examined
in the future.
This
article was particularly well written. The author did a good job of keeping
things concise and to the point without sacrificing thoroughness. However, I
would have appreciated some more expert analysis in the article.
I read the review of and the article “In the Indian Ocean, Fragments of a Continent Where They Should Not Be” by New York Times and I really enjoyed it. I like how the author of both the review and article gave a background and description of this continent found, and a supposed history of its origin and how it got there. Also, I like how the author gave us statistics, stating that the island is thought to be 900 million years old and the zircon crystals found on the island are 3 billion years old. These statistics engage the reader and make them want to learn more about the subject. Lastly, I liked how the author revealed how they think the island got to where it is now, by volcanic eruptions. This article had many positive aspects, which I enjoyed reading and learning about.
ReplyDeleteEven though this article had its good aspects, it also had its negatives. First, I did not like how the author of both the review and article did not get other opinions on this topic- if expert analysis and quotations were included, it would have improved the article and made it more solid. Also, I did not like how the author did not address what scientists are planning to do next in terms of this new discovery, what they are planning to do with this information. Although this article had a few bad aspects, I really enjoyed it.
I learned a lot from reading this article. First, I learned about a new discovery that was buried beneath millions’ years worth of volcanic material: Mauritia. This finding of this continent has only inspired more scientists and researchers to search for more. I also learned about zircon and how zircon crystals are present on this continent. This article has changed my view on society because it made me realize how much there is in this world to be discovered. There is so much more out there that no one knows about and finding out that a lost continent has been found, millions of years after its formation, only furthers the study of science and what humans can do. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article and I look forward to learning more about this topic in the future.
St. Fleur, Nicholas. "In the Indian Ocean, Fragments of a Continent Where They Should
ReplyDeleteNot Be." New York Times. N.p., 3 Feb. 2017. Web. 7 Feb. 2017.
Brian did a great job on his review of “In the Indian Ocean, Fragments of a Continent Where They Should Not Be,” by Nicholas St. Fleur. I particularly enjoyed Brian’s eloquent description, through his use of a quote from a relevant researcher, that “it’s a continent in the geological sense, not in the geographical one.” By establishing what is meant when the phrase “continent” is used, as well as providing a quote from a researcher, Brian establishes credibility and better comprehension of his article. Another element upon which Brian flourished was in his assertion of this article's importance. Brian states this “discovery gives a better indication as to our development from the supercontinent Pangaea.” It is essential to understand where we come from and by including the idea of pangaea Brian begs the reader to reflect on how far we have come. He is optimistic that “the remains of the continent will be examined in the future.” This type of optimism really sets his review apart so his readers understand its importance to our world. A final element Brian did well was in his analysis/critique paragraph of the article. Brian asserted that while the “author did a good job of keeping things concise and to the point without sacrificing thoroughness...some more expert analysis in the article” would have been appreciated. By presenting both the pros and cons of the article we as readers understand the in depth analysis Brian partook in order to write his review. Additionally, by realizing what not to do, we as readers and Brian himself understand what not to do when we write scientific articles.
However, Brian did have two areas of his review in which he could improve. Primarily, I would recommend that Brian proofread his work more carefully before submitting. For example, I noticed a small error of a missing word in the following phrase: “buried beneath millions’ years worth of volcanic material.” I believe Brian had meant to include the word “of” between millions and years. Although a small error, and it does not necessarily impact readability, his credibility would increase if there were not silly mistakes like this one. The solution is simple. Brian should just more carefully re-read his review before submitting and typo mistakes like this one could be avoided. Another area upon which Brian could improve is in his use of quotes. Although he expertly included the one from researcher Lewis D. Ashwal who stated “it’s a continent in the geological sense, not in the geographical one” Brian failed to include any others. Adding more quotes would make his review more credible and fascinating. By understanding the point of views of the researchers, we as readers feel more connected and involved with the more behind the scenes point of view quotes can provide. A simple fix for a lack of quotes is simply using for quotes. Additionally, if these are not available from the actual article researching the issue further may also provide relevant quotes/ideas from researchers in the field.
Overall, Brian did a brilliant job of creating a well-written piece that exemplifies the current discovery of the remains of the “lost continent” of Mauritia. Brian’s review illuminated how the recent discovery is monumental to our understanding, geologically, of our planet’s history. I loved learning about this discovery and it demonstrates that even though we think we know everything, there are always things we do not. For example, we thought there were only seven continents, but because of this researcher we know understand there are eight!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/science/lost-continent-indian-ocean-mauritius.html
ReplyDeleteSt. Fleur, Nicholas. "In the Indian Ocean, Fragments of a Continent Where They Should Not Be." New York Times. N.p., 3 Feb. 2017. Web. 7 Feb. 2017.
I read Brian Kradjel’s review of the New York Times article, “In the Indian Ocean, Fragments of a Continent Where They Should Not Be,” and thought that he did a very good job. I particularly liked his summary of the article and its main points. He kept his summary short and concise, which summaries are supposed to be, yet still included enough information for the reader to understand what happened in the article. In addition, I enjoyed his use of quotes in his review. He includes this quote when speaking about the ways in which the continent is not like all other continents when writing that “it’s a continent in the geological sense, not in the geographical one.” I thought that this quote emphasizes the fact that this is not a continent in the conventional sense. I also liked how he gave details and specific years, especially when saying, “Though the island is thought to be nine million years old and the crust beneath it roughly 200 million years old, the zircon crystals found on the island are three billion years old”. These numbers helped provide the reader with a time frame for the age of this land.
Although Brian did a very good job in his review, he could use some improvement. For example, Brian never mentions what the scientists are going to do with this new information. Will this new continent ever be able to hold residents? What are the benefits to this discovery and how may they affect our future? Lastly, while Brian did include one quote, he could have included more quotes from specific experts on the topic. By adding this element, the reader could have been more informed and possibly could have been exposed to different opinions regarding the topic.
I thought that the review was written very well and Brian chose a great article to talk about. I think that the topic is very interesting and relevant and Brian has further educated me on the topic. I never knew about this topic before reading Brian’s review and now feel knowledgeable on this topic. Overall, I really enjoyed Brian’s review and learned a lot from it.