The topic that will be discussed in this critique is the Planned Parenthood attack in Colorado. The first article of analysis is called, ““Planned Parenthood Official Says Colorado Gunman Opposed Abortion.” This article was written by Fox News but there was no author listed. The article provided a brief summary of the events that took occurred on the day of the event, and also disclosed personal information about Robert .L. Dear. The second article of analysis is called, “Colorado Planned Parenthood Shooting Suspect Declares, “I’m Guilty”; written by Thomson Reuters of the CBC News. This article discussed the outbursts of Robert Dear during his court trial. Finally, the last article of analysis is called, “Attacks on Abortion Clinics Should
…show more content…
The structure of the argument was effective as the author avoided using complicated language or experimenting with various syntactical patterns. However, the article has spelling errors which causes Fox to look unprofessional. For example, the article read, “Dear told AP Saturday e…” while it should have been, “Dear told AP Saturday he…”, or when calling him a “loner”, they called him a “longer.” The CBC’s argument showed Dear to be disruptive during his own hearing. The concise format of the article prevented any deviation from author on their main argument. The paragraphs, pharsing, and word choice was simple and direct. Lastly, Slate.com’s article presented a heavily opinionated view on why Dear should with domestic terrorism. The article provided many sources and examples to validate the author’s argument but hardly centred itself around its central …show more content…
The author was able to report facts that supported their stance on the matter without confusion. Secondly, the inclusion of interviews gave the impression that the author took time acquire more information about the topic to ensure their arguments were creditable. However, the absence of the author's name caused me to question if Fox’s sources were credible. In terms of research, I would not use it for research as the author's name is excluded and the article has grammatical errors. For CBC, I agree with this article as they presented their information in a simplistic and understandable manner. Also, the article's reference to the 2009 Assassination was an effective tool that personally evoked my emotions. The article had no grammatical errors and did not have the overuse of repetitive words. For research, I would use this article as it provided information on what occurred and the aftermath. I agree Slate.com’s argument but I cannot agree with the way they chose to present it. To elaborate, this article did an impressive job to shed a light on the generalization of the legal system. However, this article continually drifts back and forth from its main goal: to prove why Dear should be convicted for domestic terrorism. In addition, the tone of the article sounds malicious as the writer includes their bias instead of presenting the
The structure of the argument was effective as the author avoided using complicated language or experimenting with various syntactical patterns. However, the article has spelling errors which causes Fox to look unprofessional. For example, the article read, “Dear told AP Saturday e…” while it should have been, “Dear told AP Saturday he…”, or when calling him a “loner”, they called him a “longer.” The CBC’s argument showed Dear to be disruptive during his own hearing. The concise format of the article prevented any deviation from author on their main argument. The paragraphs, pharsing, and word choice was simple and direct. Lastly, Slate.com’s article presented a heavily opinionated view on why Dear should with domestic terrorism. The article provided many sources and examples to validate the author’s argument but hardly centred itself around its central …show more content…
The author was able to report facts that supported their stance on the matter without confusion. Secondly, the inclusion of interviews gave the impression that the author took time acquire more information about the topic to ensure their arguments were creditable. However, the absence of the author's name caused me to question if Fox’s sources were credible. In terms of research, I would not use it for research as the author's name is excluded and the article has grammatical errors. For CBC, I agree with this article as they presented their information in a simplistic and understandable manner. Also, the article's reference to the 2009 Assassination was an effective tool that personally evoked my emotions. The article had no grammatical errors and did not have the overuse of repetitive words. For research, I would use this article as it provided information on what occurred and the aftermath. I agree Slate.com’s argument but I cannot agree with the way they chose to present it. To elaborate, this article did an impressive job to shed a light on the generalization of the legal system. However, this article continually drifts back and forth from its main goal: to prove why Dear should be convicted for domestic terrorism. In addition, the tone of the article sounds malicious as the writer includes their bias instead of presenting the