Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Analysis Essay (SFA)

    Uploaded by

    saihtookhantkyaw22
    The document analyzes two articles about Daylight Saving Time (DST) that present arguments from both supporters and critics. The analysis finds that Article 2 provides stronger and more reliable evidence than Article 1. Article 2 cites more specific, credible studies conducted as recently as 2007 in California, while Article 1 references older, more general studies from the 1970s without details. Article 2 also discusses updated traffic studies from three sources, whereas Article 1 claims DST saves lives without factual support. Overall, Article 2 makes stronger arguments through credible, detailed evidence compared to the general claims and outdated research referenced in Article 1.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Analysis Essay (SFA)

    Uploaded by

    saihtookhantkyaw22
    23 views1 page
    The document analyzes two articles about Daylight Saving Time (DST) that present arguments from both supporters and critics. The analysis finds that Article 2 provides stronger and more reliable evidence than Article 1. Article 2 cites more specific, credible studies conducted as recently as 2007 in California, while Article 1 references older, more general studies from the 1970s without details. Article 2 also discusses updated traffic studies from three sources, whereas Article 1 claims DST saves lives without factual support. Overall, Article 2 makes stronger arguments through credible, detailed evidence compared to the general claims and outdated research referenced in Article 1.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document analyzes two articles about Daylight Saving Time (DST) that present arguments from both supporters and critics. The analysis finds that Article 2 provides stronger and more reliable evidence than Article 1. Article 2 cites more specific, credible studies conducted as recently as 2007 in California, while Article 1 references older, more general studies from the 1970s without details. Article 2 also discusses updated traffic studies from three sources, whereas Article 1 claims DST saves lives without factual support. Overall, Article 2 makes stronger arguments through credible, detailed evidence compared to the general claims and outdated research referenced in Article 1.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views1 page

    Analysis Essay (SFA)

    Uploaded by

    saihtookhantkyaw22
    The document analyzes two articles about Daylight Saving Time (DST) that present arguments from both supporters and critics. The analysis finds that Article 2 provides stronger and more reliable evidence than Article 1. Article 2 cites more specific, credible studies conducted as recently as 2007 in California, while Article 1 references older, more general studies from the 1970s without details. Article 2 also discusses updated traffic studies from three sources, whereas Article 1 claims DST saves lives without factual support. Overall, Article 2 makes stronger arguments through credible, detailed evidence compared to the general claims and outdated research referenced in Article 1.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Analysis Essay

    Sayar Chong Min


    Phyo Lin Kyaw
    3.14.2024

    The articles provide a comprehensive examination of Daylight Saving Time


    (DST), covering its historical origins in the United States, perceived benefits, and
    criticisms. Both supporters and critics of DST effectively present arguments,
    historical contexts, research studies, and practical considerations. However, in my
    point of view, the article from critics of DST seems more acceptable and reliable
    according to these points.
    First, the articles start with their views on energy consumption and DST. Both
    articles mentioned the pros and cons of DST when it comes to energy usage and
    both mentioned studies and researches to support their evidence. However, in article
    1, the sentence “DST saved about 1% per day in energy costs” seems to support the
    evidence but the study that the writer mentioned in this article was very general and
    outdated since it took place in the 1970s. The points look very interesting but there
    are no specifics. On the other hand, specific sources and studies are mentioned in
    article 2. In article 2, the sentence “A2007 study in California indicated that DST had
    little or no effect on energy consumption that year” makes the evidence stronger.
    The study is very specific as the place where the study was done and the name of
    the study are mentioned. In that sentence, the word “that year” makes the study
    updated. What’s more, the second study seems more specific than that in article 1.
    Second, the articles continued to discuss car accidents and road safety
    related to DST. In article 1, personally speaking, the claims are not sufficient to
    support the evidence because the sentence “Supporters of DST also claim that more
    sunlight saves lives” is an opinion not fact. Although three decades of research is
    mentioned to support the claim, I think it is a bit unnecessary because the time in
    which the research has been done is so long. Despite these researches, the points
    that the author adds are interesting and acceptable. In article 2, three studies are
    mentioned, all of them seem reliable and updated and the points are acceptable as
    well.
    Third, authors added their opinions in the last paragraph to make their claims
    stronger. However, article 1 mentioned another study to make the argument more
    acceptable but as usual, the study seems very general and there is no credibility.
    Overall, the points that are made by the author of article 2 are stronger and
    more reliable than that of article 1. Because of specific details, updated studies and
    reliable facts make the article 2 better.

    You might also like