Refer to your Expeditions in Reading book for a complete version of this text. Part A

How does the author of “Stick to Real Microscopes” support the claim that the viewing power of smartphone microscopes is ineffective when compared to real microscopes?

He explains why portability is much less of an advantage than stated by the opposing side.

He contrasts the performance of the two different kinds of microscopes in a laboratory setting.

The author describes the many hidden costs in converting a smartphone into a microscope.

The author compares the video capabilities of the two different kinds of microscopes.
Question 2
Part B

Which evidence from the text supports the answer to Part A?

“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).”

“So an accurate estimate of the cost of creating a smartphone microscope—one that includes the price of the phone itself—is more like $260 to $410. That’s a lot more than ten bucks.”

“Just because something is easily transported does not erase its other shortcomings. A spoon is more portable than a large shovel, but I would not want to dig a trench with a spoon.”

“I found several real microscopes that come with digital cameras and video recorders. They can record videos just as easily as a smartphone microscope, but they can do so at much higher magnification. Several cost around $300 (Gates).”