You should begin your assignment by reading the research on which the popular press article is based. Most are open access, and those which are not will be accessible with University of Melbourne credentials. You are not necessarily expected to understand every detail of the experiments conducted, but rather to form a general idea of the sort of information which this work has obtained.(i) With this knowledge of the original research, you can begin analysing the accuracy of both the popular press account and the press release. In no more than 100 words state which of the common errors in science reporting discussed in this module are present in the popular press account (there will be at least one in each article, though there may be more), and where they arose. By this we want to ask: are they confined to the popular press article, are they also found in the press release, or do the researchers themselves (whether in the conclusions they draw in the research paper or in quotations given to the journalist) share the blame?(ii) You will write your own version of the popular press article, reporting on the research while avoiding the errors you have identified in the original. This should be done in 400 words ( /-10%). This is not expected to describe the research comprehensively, and as it needs to be appropriate for a general audience, it should be much less technically detailed than the primary research. Your experience in the first assignment will be helpful in determining an appropriate level of detail, though a popular press article will generally be somewhat more formal than a blog post.