1. Did the authors have similar or opposing views?
The author had opposing views, because one author said that traveling and studying Mars is important and beneficial to us humans. The other author though, says that Mars investigations are a waste of money and too dangerous.
2. Did the authors use the same points of comparison? Explain with examples.
Yes, the authors did use the same point of comparison. One would be about the radiation being either too dangerous or harmless to us humans. Another would be building architecture on mars such as domes and houses, being either too expensive or useful to study.
3. Did the authors support their views in the same or different ways?
It was different in all areas. One author used facts and studies to prove his point, while the other author used mostly onions and not much resilient on facts to prove a true point.
4. Did both focus most on appeals to logic or to emotion?
One author focused on logic, with explanations and studies on why colonizing Mars would be a good thing. The other author used more emotion and was less focused on logic, with strong, opinionative claims using fear and excitement in his statements.