For this project you will analyze and compare the arguments made in two peer-rev

For this project you will analyze and compare the arguments made in two peer-reviewed published journal articles and report your findings in a 1000-1500 word memo. You will be provided with the articles to compare; you may not select your own. These articles have been chosen because of the different research methods and rhetorical structures they use to create knowledge.
They are:
Dessai et al. – 2004 – Defining and Experiencing Dangerous Climate Change.pdf Actions
Leiserowitz – 2005 – American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous.pdf Actions
In this assignment, you’re essentially reverse engineering two scholarly arguments, paying particular attention to these patterns as a way of better understanding both the specific arguments themselves and the commonalities and differences among such arguments across the social scientific scholarly article genre.
Your memo should:
Be 1000-1500 (roughly 3 pages)
Address key points of similarity and difference across the two articles
Use professional language and formatting.
Follow the section outlines below
Section 1: Outline and Summary of Article #1
Section 2: Outline and Summary of Article #2
Section 3: Analytic Comparison of Articles #1 and #2
The following provides details on each of these 3 sections.
Section 1: Outline and Summary of Article #1
In the first section, provide a full description of Article #1 that includes:
Publication Context: What journal is this article published in? What kinds of scholarship from what fields does it publish? How do the authors’ fields and expertise match the journal’s focus?
Exigence: Introduce the article and indicate the authors’ interest in the research subject matter or its general exigence. Why did they choose to write this article? What’s the motivation?
Contribution: Describe the contribution that this article makes to the field, as far as you can determine based upon this piece and similar scholarship you have read. What contributions do the authors claim to make? Do the authors identify a “gap” in the previous literature?
Primary Conclusions: What are the primary conclusions that the authors draw from their research? What claims do they make based on their data analysis and/or theorization?
Literature Review and Citations: What previous scholarly work do the authors invoke, and where in the article do they invoke it? Is there a stand-alone section that reviews the literature, or are citations scattered throughout? How do the authors’ arguments relate to the previous literature?
Methods: What methods does the author use to create new data, to analyze existing data, or to otherwise create new knowledge? Are these methods standard or unusual? How detailed is the description of the methods?
Data, Backing, and Evidence: What kinds of data or backing serve as evidence for the authors’ claims? Does this evidence seem appropriate and sufficient to support those claims?
Implications: What are the implications (both stated and implied) of following the authors’ argument? What future work is recommended, if any? Are claims qualified in any way toward the end of the article?
Outline: Create a sentence outline of the article, with the sentences written in plain language, in your own words. Don’t worry about creating a sentence for every single paragraph and footnote; instead, focus on the main claims in each section, and the subclaims, data, backing, rebuttals, and qualifiers (where present) that support those claims. Focus too on argumentative flow—how do the authors move the argument forward? How does one section feed the next? In the outline, specifically note instances of:
Metadiscourse: What kinds of metadiscourse do the authors use, where in the article do they use it, and how is such metadiscourse helpful in understanding their argument?
Roadmap and Signposts: Do the authors provide an overview of the argument—a roadmap constructed with metadiscourse? What kinds of signals and signposts in the article lead us along the roadmap of his argument?
You can organize this section of the memo however you like; each of these requirements could be a subheading, for example.
Section 2: Outline and Summary of Article #2
In this second section, write a description of Article #2 that includes the same required content that you provided for Article #1.
Section 3: Analytic Comparison of Articles #1 and #2
In the memo’s final section, note the commonalities and differences between Articles #1 and #2. You can do this in paragraph, list, and/or table form. Then, provide possible explanations for these commonalities and differences. Back up your proposed explanations with clear reasoning and specific evidence.