Hope Diamond
Cathy Danh
Science 8
Mr. O’Rourke
November 19, 2013
Hope Diamond
The two articles, “The Hope Diamond Curse” and “Curses Debunked” are both decent articles. The first article about the Hope Diamond being cursed is telling you about the legend of the diamond and how everyone who had the diamond had misfortunes. “Curses Debunked” is saying how the legend is fake and not reasonable. I believe that “Curses Debunked” is more convincing for many reasons. The first few sentences of “Curses Debunked” began with a strong purpose why the curse is not real. It said “According to Smithsonian Curator, Jeffrey Post: “The curse is a fascinating part of the story of the Hope Diamond that has helped to make the diamond as famous as it is. But as a scientist, as a curator, I don’t believe in curses.” It is basically saying that the first article just stated out bad happenings for the people that had the diamond, there wasn’t much evidence along with the conclusions. There needs to be some kind of indication why the tragic effects happened. The bad luck could have just happened out of nowhere or the person’s luck was just not so good. There is no proof that the diamond is cursed. In “Curses Debunked” it said “For example, poor John Baptiste Tavernier, who was supposedly ripped apart by a pack of savage dogs on his last visit to India… Well, in fact, he made himself quite a fortune selling diamonds to French royalty, and lived up to a very respectable old age and died in Russia.” It is saying how just because he had the diamond with him at this time doesn’t mean it caused him to have bad luck. The fourth paragraph in “The Hope Diamond Curse” said “In 1830, the now historic treasure was purchased by London banker Henry Thomas Hope for $150,000. It proved a mixed blessing. Family fortunes declined rapidly, and one grandson died penniless before another heir finally sold the tainted stone.” That statement did not have much reasoning on how the diamond could’ve instigated
Science 8
Mr. O’Rourke
November 19, 2013
Hope Diamond
The two articles, “The Hope Diamond Curse” and “Curses Debunked” are both decent articles. The first article about the Hope Diamond being cursed is telling you about the legend of the diamond and how everyone who had the diamond had misfortunes. “Curses Debunked” is saying how the legend is fake and not reasonable. I believe that “Curses Debunked” is more convincing for many reasons. The first few sentences of “Curses Debunked” began with a strong purpose why the curse is not real. It said “According to Smithsonian Curator, Jeffrey Post: “The curse is a fascinating part of the story of the Hope Diamond that has helped to make the diamond as famous as it is. But as a scientist, as a curator, I don’t believe in curses.” It is basically saying that the first article just stated out bad happenings for the people that had the diamond, there wasn’t much evidence along with the conclusions. There needs to be some kind of indication why the tragic effects happened. The bad luck could have just happened out of nowhere or the person’s luck was just not so good. There is no proof that the diamond is cursed. In “Curses Debunked” it said “For example, poor John Baptiste Tavernier, who was supposedly ripped apart by a pack of savage dogs on his last visit to India… Well, in fact, he made himself quite a fortune selling diamonds to French royalty, and lived up to a very respectable old age and died in Russia.” It is saying how just because he had the diamond with him at this time doesn’t mean it caused him to have bad luck. The fourth paragraph in “The Hope Diamond Curse” said “In 1830, the now historic treasure was purchased by London banker Henry Thomas Hope for $150,000. It proved a mixed blessing. Family fortunes declined rapidly, and one grandson died penniless before another heir finally sold the tainted stone.” That statement did not have much reasoning on how the diamond could’ve instigated