This article was better than the last one. It went a little deeper with some background. It described the method used to do the investigation and explained what was seen. It presented new information as a quote from someone but did not identify the speaker. I don't understand what that means, if they won't identify their source then how reliable is the information?
I thought the thesis of this article was that thunderstorms produce antimatter but later it suggests that the big deal was the amount of antimatter because it's already known that storms produce it.
I don't think the article was well-thought out. They were just trying to encapsulate all the information into brief paragraphs. I really don't see any development to the article as it's basically just a list of facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment