The news article, Europa’s Proposed Ocean Could be Rich in Oxygen, it states that there is 100 times more oxygen on the moon than previously estimated. This means that it is a more plausible environment for life to exist on Europa. The article states that charged particles colliding with water particles would generate oxygen a few centimeters above the crust. The article also said that a layer of ice rose up and erased the old craters from Europa making the surface smooth.
1) What specific claim(s) does the news article make about the study? That is, what did the news article say was discovered? For each claim,
indicate if the original paper actually makes that claim.
1) The two claims that the article makes is that Europa’s ocean has 100 times more oxygen in them, and that ice rose up and smoothed out the surface of Europa. The original paper states that the oxygen in Europa is located in its atmosphere. The other claim in the news article is not spoken of in the journal, but it does not believe that it was not talked about.
2) Most technical papers have a "Conclusions" section (often labeled as such). Find this section. Are the items which the original authors
highlighted as conclusions of their study discussed in the news article? Indicate "yes" or "no", giving your evidence.
2) The items in the conclusion section of the journal are mostly not in the news article. This is shown because in the journal it is said that molecular oxygen is found in the extended atmosphere of Europa when the article is saying that the oxygen found on Europa is in the Oceans.
3) Most technical papers will describe the uncertainty around their conclusions and discoveries, often discussed in a section labeled "Discussion."
Does the original paper describe the degree of confidence the scientists have in their discoveries? If so, describe this, and indicate whether
or not the news article also discusses the degree of uncertainty.
3) In this journal there is no section named discussion, and the article does not state on how uncertain the scientists are on this discovery.
4) It is the job of the news reporter to make whatever item they are reporting on relevant to some larger issue or set of issues; in contrast,
a technical paper is often much more focused and may not deal with broader implications of the work. Do you find examples of the reporter
discussing "broader implications" not present in the original paper? If so, describe them. Additionally, if so, indicate whether you (as a
reader) can see that this broader implication actually does follow from the conclusions of the study.
4) I do find the reporter of this article making broader implications then what the original journal is stating. This is shown by in the paper it stating that it makes it easier for life to be on Europa. The original journal does not go into life on Europa whatsoever. In the news article it says that there is enough oxygen to support three million tons of fish. The conclusion of the study does not follow this broader implication. The conclusion discusses more about the oxygen levels in the atmosphere.
5) In some technical paper the original scientists might describes previous contradictory work of previous research (often in the "Introduction"),
which they presumably consider their new work has overturned. If so, does the news article reflect that this study has resulted in the
rejection of a previous hypothesis?
5) This original journal does not talk about any previous research that it overturns. This journal just talks about the recent discoveries that were made.
6) Journalists very often couch science news items as "debates between equal sides", even if the weight of the evidence is not equal. Does the
news article discuss alternative hypotheses that are not mentioned in the original paper? If so, does the news article give a measure of what
degree of evidential support exists for either of the alternative models?
6) The news article does not talk about alternative hypothesis’s that are not mentioned in the original paper.