Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment


  1. 1. Article Critic and Reaction Paper |1 Running Head: SUMMARY AND REACTION PAPER Summary and Reaction Paper Student’s Name: Professor’s Name: Course Details: Date Submitted:
  2. 2. Article Critic and Reaction Paper |2 Summary The article titled “scientists explain supernovae by candle light”, is written by GemmaLavender, and published by Astronomy Now. Basically, the author seeks to intone that thereappears to have been some new approaches into deciphering how type la supernovae actuallyoccurs. Using examples presented by three other scientists mentioned in the article, the authorpresents a simulation of how supernovae occur. The misunderstanding of the Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition (DDT) mechanism and how its incorporation with previous practicalitieswill enable a better understanding of type la supernovae are some of the main ideas contained inthe article. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article To start with, the article contains vivid descriptions of the process until a supernovaoccurs. Pictures that explain this have been used non-economically in the article. In addition, theauthor ensures that the reader gets to know the difference in several conflicts between old andnew hypotheses revolving around the understanding of supernovae She also uses personalexpressions from the researchers on what actually is being done to heighten this particular newdiscovery. One weakness is the fact that article is purely scientific, thus the wide usage of scientificconnotations. The author also fails to introduce properly what exactly a supernova is, and how itrelates to present day astronomy. In trying to explain the occurrence and mechanism of asupernova, the author fails to present clearly why the prevailing hypothesis on how type lasupernovae occurs, is lacking. It would have been more interesting if scientists opposing or whoare served on this new discovery were interviewed and their notions put in paper too. The authorsimply mentions that there is an ongoing hot debater about DDT, but doesn’t go any further.
  3. 3. Article Critic and Reaction Paper |3 Response/Reaction The text contained in this article can be described as authentic. However, with regard toits effectiveness, it may be lacking as it seems to be presented for scientists or astronomers.Therefore, an average person may fail to particularly comprehend its contents, and or identifywith it. In addition, the terminology inferred in the article is way too scientific to becomprehended by the average reader. It should be noted that the article was unfairly presentedbecause only one side of the divide was referred to. To make the article interesting would havedemanded that the author complete a fair presentation of how the new discovery actually outwitsthe older perception or hypothesis. Conclusion Although the article is elaborate on some facts, such as the occurrence of a supernova,and that DDT actually exist, it lacks in depth and scope and would appear to the trained reader,to be shallow. The topic being covered seems too big to be summed up into a three page article.It would have been much more pronounced, had the author given the article and topic, moreheadroom for the thesis to mature. However, it is an easy read, and will definitely arouse majorthoughts regarding the formation of the universe in relation to type la supernovae.