In this set of materials, the reading and lecture both discuss Mars to be next candidate planet to live in. The article strongly postulates that there are certain characteristics features of Mars that has indicated existnace of life could be possible on Mars, and provide three reasons to endorse its idea. However, the professor in the lecture mentions those reason are dubious and called them as an impractical approach, and gainsays each of them.
The first and foremost, the writer begins by asserting that signs of liquid water are detected by electromegnetic radiations on the mars, and water in essential for human life. Therefore, life can be started on the mars. On the other hand, the lecturer dismisses this point by indicating that earth is active planet and it's atmosphere is warm that can support the presence of water. First of allthe water presence is not confirmed, Second, even if the water is present, The mars atmosphere is extremely cold that water cannot exist in liquid form because of high pressure. Hence, dismisses the reading claim.
Furthermore, the professor posits that it is possible that microbes could survive on the Mars, but human are not microbes. To be more specific, human are weak and their body cannot support the extreme weather conditions of mars. This is due to the reason that mars is a hundred time less dense than earth and there is significant difference of tempertaure at the Mars. Therefore, either humans will burn or freeze on the surface of Mars. These claims clearly refute the writer's implication that life could be possible on mars as mars supports the microbes of the eath.
Ultimatelty, the writer wraps up its argument by dclaring that curosity rover has found methane on mars and methane is valuable source to support the life. Not surprisingly, the lecturer takes an issue with that by contending that data collected from Curosity rover is not accurate. Only European research was accurate that indicated very less amount of methane, which could not support life. Furthmore, after that methane presence was not confirmed. Consequently, this reason is not persuasive too
In this set of materials, the reading and lecture both discuss
Mars
to be
next
candidate planet to
live
in. The article
strongly
postulates that there are certain characteristics features of
Mars
that has indicated
existnace
of
life
could be possible on
Mars
, and provide three
reasons
to endorse its
idea
.
However
, the professor in the lecture mentions those
reason
are dubious and called them as an impractical approach, and gainsays each of them.
The
first
and foremost, the writer
begins
by asserting that signs of liquid
water
are detected
by
electromegnetic
radiations on the
mars
, and
water
in essential for
human
life
.
Therefore
,
life
can be
started
on the
mars
.
On the other hand
, the lecturer dismisses this point by indicating that earth is active planet and it's atmosphere is warm that can
support
the presence of
water
.
First
of
allthe
water
presence is not confirmed, Second, even if the
water
is present, The
mars
atmosphere is
extremely
cold
that
water
cannot exist in liquid form
because
of high pressure.
Hence
, dismisses the reading claim.
Furthermore
, the professor posits that it is possible that microbes could survive on the
Mars
,
but
human
are not microbes. To be more specific,
human
are weak and their body cannot
support
the extreme weather conditions of
mars
. This is due to the
reason
that
mars
is a hundred time less dense than earth and there is significant difference of
tempertaure
at the
Mars
.
Therefore
, either
humans
will burn or freeze on the surface of
Mars
. These claims
clearly
refute the writer's implication that
life
could be possible on
mars
as
mars
supports
the microbes of the
eath
.
Ultimatelty
, the writer wraps up its argument by
dclaring
that
curosity
rover has found methane on
mars
and methane is valuable source to
support
the
life
. Not
surprisingly
, the lecturer takes an issue with that by contending that data collected from
Curosity
rover is not accurate.
Only
European research was accurate that indicated
very
less amount of methane, which could not
support
life
.
Furthmore
, after that methane presence was not confirmed.
Consequently
, this
reason
is not persuasive too