Write: When you have analysed the argument in one of the articles from the "Read" section, write a short critique of the article in your journal. The following questions will help you to structure your critique:
- Does the writer state the argument clearly in the introduction?
- Is the position of the author largely subjective or objective?
- Does the writer use sufficient evidence to support his case?
- Is the evidence reliable?
- Is the logically developed?
Choice: Post-Crash Fascism – Planning for the apocalypse by Steven Meisel.
https://www.adbusters.org/magazine/100/post-crash-fascism.html
Critique
The writer does state the argument clearly in the discussion, it offers a good clue as to where the subject is heading, and entices the reader to continue on.
The article hints to being objective but some parts of this article, I believe, are definitely more subjective.
There is a lot of statistical evidence used, so much so that it's easy for the reader to get lost in it all and in fact, may end up losing interest in the subject. There's clearly plenty of research material, but again, I believe that much more was offered than was actually needed for the article, causing the reader to lose focus in the subject all together.
The evidence appears to come from reports and Government documents, but this is questionable as to whether it's factual or information that the Government chooses to 'feed' it's readers so that the reader believes what the providers want them to believe and nothing else.
Logically, it's fairly well developed, but it fails to direct train of thought for the reader. This could be due to the excessive amount of information provided, causing the reader to lose focus and possibly even daydream through the read. Perhaps if it kept to a minimal line of logic with equally minimum evidence, perhaps it would make it much easier for the reader to stay focused on the article.
Discover more from TigerSpirit's Corner
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TigerSpirit's Corner 