The Compare-Contrast Essay: What it is and ... - Bellevue College

The Compare-Contrast Essay:
What it is and How to Construct One
The Writing Lab – D204d
http://bellevuecollege.edu/asc/writing
425-564-2200
A compare/contrast essay looks at two or more things to find meaningful similarities or
differences between them. Comparing things explores aspects that are similar, and contrasting discusses
differences. By analyzing common parts of different things, readers should get a deeper understanding
of them.
Although they have many different names, the two main approaches to a comparison essay are
block style and point-by-point style. The block approach explains aspects of one topic in one paragraph,
then compares or contrasts the same kinds of things about the other topic in the next paragraph. For
instance, you may describe Movie A's setting, dialogue, and music, then describe Movie B's setting,
dialogue, and music in relation to Movie A. In the point-by-point style, one point or aspect of both topics
is discussed, identifying their differences and similarities in one or two paragraphs, before moving on to
explore the next point of comparison. The block organization is easier to follow for short essays, while
the point-by-point approach is better suited to longer, more complex papers (Comprone 275; Fawcett
123-124). The conclusion of both styles of comparison sums up the similarities and differences discussed
and evaluates them.
With any comparison essay, brainstorming and prewriting are especially helpful to prevent
shallow or circular writing. Make a list or diagram to find common parts to compare, then figure out
how those common parts are similar and different, and what effects they have on you as an audience
member or on the subjects themselves. In the prewriting stage, it may become clear that the topics of
comparison are very similar, so focusing on their differences could be necessary to develop the essay.
Likewise, if the topics seem completely unlike each other at first glance, discussing their hidden
similarities may prove more interesting (Fawcett 284). Making these kinds of decisions before drafting
the essay can keep the comparison focused.
As the comparison progresses, a deeper impression of the topics should develop through
analysis. Go beyond a mere listing of differences to explain, for example, why the characters see the
world differently, or why one argument is more effective than another. Conclude with a brief review of
the subjects compared, reminding readers of the reasons the similarities and differences are important.
Some useful transition words and phrases include the following:
Similarities: as, in addition, likewise, similarly, moreover, also, too, in a similar way/vein/fashion,
both, neither, just as...so, like, the same;
Differences: although, whereas, conversely, in contrast, on (the) one hand . . . on the other
hand, however, unlike, but, yet, instead, on the contrary.
Works Cited
Comprone, Joseph J. Form and Substance: The Modern Essay. Dubuque: Brown, 1976.
Fawcett, Susan and Alvin Sandberg, eds. Evergreen with Readings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996.

Cigar Trees and Faux Firs
(A Block-Style Comparison)
Cone-bearing trees appear so different from broadleaf trees that they don’t seem to have anything in
common other than being trees. Given their dissimilarity, finding elements in common is all the more striking. The
coniferous Douglas-fir and the broadleaf catalpa are different in fruit, leaf, and evolutionary age. However, both
trees can be seen on the BCC campus, have similar species variety, and add to the health of the environment.
The Douglas-fir is not a true fir, but a distinct species with two varieties, Coast and Rocky Mountain. It
gets its official name, Pseudotsuga menziesii, from Archibald Menzies, a Scottish naturalist who discovered the tree
on Vancouver Island in 1791 (pseudo means “false” and tsuga is “hemlock”). The common name is from David
Douglas, the Scottish botanist who identified the tree in the Pacific Northwest in 1826 (“Douglas Fir”). Unlike a true
fir, which has upright cones, the fruit of the Douglas-fir is a downward-hanging cone that is three to four inches long
at maturity. It has rounded scales, and between them are three-pronged bracts that look like tiny green bookmark
ribbons that turn brown when the seeds ripen. Seventeen months after the cones first emerge as buds, the seeds
mature and are shed in autumn (Williams; Hermann & Lavender). Coast Douglas-fir leaves are flat, yellowish green
1" needles; the Rocky Mountain needles are bluish green; and both varieties' needles sprout out all over the branches
(Williams). Douglas-fir is also a very old species. Fossils of the Rocky Mountain variety were found in Idaho from
the Rupelian layer of 28.5 to 33.9 million years ago (Paleobiology; Rohde), although fossils of the genus
Pseudotsuga have been found from 50 million years ago (Williams). This makes sense, since conifers in general
evolved long before fruiting broadleaf trees. Subsequently, any kind of catalpa would have to be a younger species
than Douglas-firs, but that doesn't mean they're completely dissimilar.
The catalpa tree derives its name from “catawba,” the Cherokee word for wood (Brown), and has two main
species of tree, the Common or Southern Catalpa whose first published description dates from 1788, and the
Northern or Western Catalpa, both originating from eastern North America (Graves). Instead of cones, the catalpa's
fruits are 8"- to 18"-long, narrow green pods that emerge from white flowers in the summer. The pods ripen and turn
brown, resembling cigars, and they stay on the tree through autumn and winter (Graves). In the spring, the pods
release hundreds of tissue-thin winged seeds that litter the ground like confetti before falling off the tree. Another
difference between Douglas-fir and catalpa trees is their leaves. The catalpa's medium green leaves are large and
heart-shaped. Northern Catalpa leaves oppose each other on the stem, but the Southern Catalpa leaves usually
emerge three at a time around the same spot (Michigan). Common among all the trees, both Douglas-fir and catalpa,
is the fact their leaves are lighter on their undersides. The most subtle difference, however, between the Douglas-fir
and Catalpa is their evolutionary age. Surprisingly, fossils of Northern Catalpa were found in Oregon from roughly
the same stage as the Douglas-fir fossils found in Idaho (Paleobiology). Therefore, the Northern and Southern
Catalpa may have become distinct species during the same period of time as the two varieties of the older species
Douglas-fir developed.

Although their outward appearance is quite different, the Douglas-fir and Catalpa do have similarities.
They each developed two kinds, either varieties of a species or two unique North American species, over a similar
span of time. Their seeds also mature over several seasons, and their fruits turn brown before falling from the tree.
Despite their different origins, these trees have been found growing close to each other in Western Washington,
absorbing noise and carbon dioxide, and producing oxygen, thereby benefiting us all.
Cigar Trees and Faux Firs
(A Point-by-Point Comparison)
Cone-bearing trees appear so different from broadleaf trees that they don't seem to have anything in
common other than being trees. Given their dissimilarity, finding elements in common is all the more striking. The
coniferous Douglas-fir and the broadleaf catalpa are different in fruit, leaf, and evolutionary age. However, both
trees can be seen on the BCC campus, have similar species variety, and add to the health of the environment.
The official identifications of the Douglas-fir and the catalpa both date from the late 18th century. Despite
its name, the Douglas-fir is not a true fir, but a distinct species with two varieties, Coast and Rocky Mountain. It gets
its official name, Pseudotsuga menziesii, from Archibald Menzies, a Scottish naturalist who discovered the tree on
Vancouver Island in 1791 (pseudo means “false” and tsuga is “hemlock”). The common name is from David
Douglas, the Scottish botanist who identified the tree in the Pacific Northwest in 1826 (“Douglas Fir”). Catalpa
derives its name from “catawba,” the Cherokee word for wood (Brown), and has two main species of tree, the
Common or Southern Catalpa whose first published description dates from 1788, and the Northern or Western
Catalpa, both originating from eastern North America (Graves).
Unlike the catalpa, the fruit of the Douglas-fir is a downward-hanging cone that is three to four inches long
at maturity. It has rounded scales and between them are three-pronged bracts that look like tiny bookmark ribbons;
they go from green to brown as they ripen. Seventeen months after the cones first emerge as buds, the seeds mature
and are shed in autumn (Williams; Hermann & Lavender). The catalpa’s fruits, on the other hand, are 8"- to 18"-
long, narrow green pods that emerge from white flowers in the summer. The pods ripen and turn brown, resembling
cigars, and they stay on the tree through autumn and winter (Graves). In the spring, the pods release hundreds of
tissue-thin winged seeds that litter the ground like confetti before falling off the tree.
Another difference between Douglas-fir and catalpa trees is their leaves. Coast Douglas-fir leaves are flat,
yellowish green 1" needles, and the Rocky Mountain needles are bluish green. Both varieties’ needles sprout out all
over the branches (Williams). The catalpa’s medium green leaves are large and heart-shaped. Northern Catalpa
leaves oppose each other on the stem, but the Southern Catalpa leaves usually emerge three at a time around the
same spot (Michigan). Common among all the trees is the fact their leaves are lighter on their undersides.
The most subtle difference, however, between the Douglas-fir and Catalpa is their evolutionary age.
Fossilized Douglas-fir of the Rocky Mountain variety was found in Idaho from the Rupelian layer of 28.5 to 33.9

million years ago (Paleobiology; Rohde), although fossils of the larger group Pseudotsuga have been found from 50
million years ago (Williams). Surprisingly, fossils of Northern Catalpa were found in Oregon from roughly the same
stage (Paleobiology). Therefore, the Northern and Southern Catalpa may have become distinct species during the
same period of time as the two varieties of the older species Douglas-fir developed.
Although their outward appearance is quite different, the Douglas-fir and Catalpa do have similarities.
They each developed two kinds, either varieties of a species or two unique North American species, over a similar
span of time. Their seeds also mature over several seasons, and their fruits turn brown before falling from the tree.
Despite their different origins, these trees have been found growing close to each other in Western Washington,
absorbing noise and carbon dioxide, and producing oxygen, thereby benefiting us all.
Works Cited
Brown, Beverly. “Catalpa.” Nazareth College North and South Campus Tree Walks. 4 Dec. 2003. Nazareth College
of Rochester. http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~treewalk/catalpa/catalpa.htm 14 July 2004.
“Douglas Fir & Western Larch.” May 2002. Western Wood Products Association. http://www.wwpa.org/dfir.htm
14 July 2004.
Graves, Emily. “Catalpa.” University of Georgia. http://www.discoverlife.org/nh/tx/Plantae/Dicotyledoneae/
Bignoniaceae/Catalpa/speciosa. 4 Aug. 2004.
Catalpa bignonoides. University of Georgia. http://www.discoverlife.org/nh/tx/Plantae/Dicotyledoneae/
Bignoniaceae/Catalpa/speciosa/bignonoides 4 Aug. 2004.
Hermann, Richard K, Denis P. Lavender. “Douglas-Fir.” Silvics of North America Volume 1. 1990. USDA Forest
Service Northeastern Area. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pseudotsuga/
menziesii.htm. 14 July 2004.
Michigan State University Extension. “Southern Catalpa.” Treehelp.com.TreeHelp Ltd.
http://www.treehelp.com/trees/catalpa/catalpa-types-southern.asp 14 July 2004.
Paleobiology Database, The. [search engine]. http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/
bridge.pl?user=Guest&action=beingTaxonInfo 26 Sep. 2004.
Rohde, Robert. “Geologic Timeline with Stages.” GeoWhen Database. 25 Mar. 2004.
http://www.stratigraphy.org/geowhen/timelinestages.html 4 Aug. 2004.
Williams, Jordin A. “Biogeography of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).” Fall 2000. San Francisco State
University. http://bss.sfsu.edu:224/courses/Fall00Projects/Douglas-fir.html 4 Aug. 2004.