The author's purpose in the paragraphs is to provide evidence that smartphone microscopes are ineffective tools. The text specifically compares the magnification power of smartphone microscopes to real microscopes and illustrates how this difference impacts the quality of observations and accuracy, ultimately suggesting that smartphone microscopes are inadequate for detailed scientific work.
Read the paragraphs from “Stick to Real Microscopes.”
The most powerful smartphone microscopes can magnify objects up to 350 times their actual size. That sounds impressive. But it pales in comparison to what a real microscope can do. A mid-level real microscope can magnify objects up to 2000 times their actual size. Let those numbers sink it. They say that a real microscope is five to six times more powerful than a smartphone microscope.
And what does that mean in the lab? Well, imagine looking at a sample of blood. With a real microscope, one would see individual red blood cells, their specific shapes, and their distinct movements. A smartphone microscope would give the observer a very different picture. Suddenly, the sample would look like just a hazy collection of tiny red blobs (Manea). Remember, scientists seek to gather precise and accurate information. But the information gathered with the smartphone microscope would be less precise and less accurate. It would be less useful. Again, when the two are compared, the smartphone microscope comes up short.
Question
What is the author’s purpose in the paragraphs?
Responses
to compare scientists’ opinions on real and smartphone microscopes
to compare scientists’ opinions on real and smartphone microscopes
to demonstrate how powerful smartphone microscopes are
to demonstrate how powerful smartphone microscopes are
to describe various uses for smartphone microscopes
to describe various uses for smartphone microscopes
to provide evidence that smartphone microscopes are ineffective tools
to provide evidence that smartphone microscopes are ineffective tools
1 answer