A simple question for you all, I'm sure.

[Marconis]

For my bio class, we had to analyze a scientific article on an ant species in the Amazonian rain forest that poisons non-host plants. We were to follow a guideline in this mini book that we got, and the last question bothers me. To me, it is worded oddly. Maybe you could help?

 

The main point(s) of view presented in this scientific article is (are)_____

 

Then under it it says, (The main question you are trying to answer here is: What is the author looking at, and how is s/he seeing it?)

 

So, I took it quite literally, I guess, and responded the following:The main point of view presented in the scientific article is that the author is looking at a rather puzzling occurrence and relating logical factors, such as the fact that the ants in the environment contain poison and the surrounding plants are killed, and making a conclusion based on the findings.

 

To me, it's a pretty crappy answer. Thanks in advance.

[Mr Skeptic]

I found an article on that here: http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0921-stanford.html. Seems it would be an example of symbiosis -- the tree provides nesting place, and the ant clears out their host's competition. Apparently the natives though evil spirits cultivated those "devil's gardens".

[CharonY]

Without reading the paper I of course do not know what the authors concluded, however your answer is a bit.. how to put it... hollow and generic.

I assume that the specific points touched with the article are meant. Scientific articles are usually based on hypothesis and have specific aims (e.g. providing evidence for said hypothesis or use that as basis to generate more evidenced-based hypotheses).

Usually the abstract as well as the discussion section gives important clues what the main arguments in the paper are. The fact that ants kill of plants is merely an observation, or a result. The important bit is into which context do the authors put it. You said it is puzzling, the question is, why is it puzzling? What is the hypothesis that states that it should not happen (otherwise it would not be puzzling but expected)? What is the consequence (as denoted by the authors)?