I choose auricles of “Let’s Not say Adios to Bilingual Education” by Rovira, and the article “California Republicans Vote to Restore “Bilingual Education” ”by Unz. Compare claim, evidence and audience, which makes them more useful.
Firstly, I want to talk about claims of two articles. For article “Let’s Not say Adios to Bilingual Education”, the claim is about supports bilingual education. From the introduction of the article, Rovira used an example about California to stop bilingual education, which makes us know that she wants to talk about bilingual education. Also, she showed her opinion that she supported bilingual education. Rovira said, “It was a sad day for our country because we allowed ill-informed politicians and xenophobic voters …show more content…
If we have two students with same ages, student A learns two languages and student B just learn English. Student B will use less time to learning the language. Unz said, “”Whereas for decades bilingual education theorists had claimed that it took seven to ten years for a young child to learn English” (Unz 3). He also said, “ everyone now recognized that just a few months were usually time enough, with the new goal being for Latino children to learn English in pre-school” ” (Unz 3). It is clear that the time of learning English is faster than bilingual language student. Thus, Unz thought the bilingual English that is not necessary for students and English Only is better than that. Bilingual education is not accessible y for students. I have a personal experience in my life. In the high school, teachers taught us by English and this process was not a good memory for me. I have to use English to study Math, Physics, Chemistry, and I cannot completely understand. So for this article, the author though the English only is more helpful for …show more content…
They all use the example of California. Rovira used the California example to evidence some cities prohibiting bilingual education, and their decision is not right. Unz also wrote the California example at the beginning of his article and he wrote the California will restore bilingual education, which means that the English only will not implement. This behavior also is not right. They used the same example to show the different opinions. Also, Rovira and Unz use facts. For Rovira, she wrote the case about Cincinnati. In Cincinnati, this city implemented bilingual education, and they provide the instruction of other languages. For the article by Unz also use facts, he said the grade of students had significant improvement because they use intensive English immersion. Besides, they all use statistics in their articles. For example, Unz wrote, “Hence the 8-to-0 committee vote to reestablished bilingual education in California.”(Unz, 2). They use same pieces of evidence – examples, facts, and statistics, which makes their article more convincing. We can research this information, and it exists, which means that their evidence are convincing, and we can trust them. That evidence is about the bilingual education, and they are
Firstly, I want to talk about claims of two articles. For article “Let’s Not say Adios to Bilingual Education”, the claim is about supports bilingual education. From the introduction of the article, Rovira used an example about California to stop bilingual education, which makes us know that she wants to talk about bilingual education. Also, she showed her opinion that she supported bilingual education. Rovira said, “It was a sad day for our country because we allowed ill-informed politicians and xenophobic voters …show more content…
If we have two students with same ages, student A learns two languages and student B just learn English. Student B will use less time to learning the language. Unz said, “”Whereas for decades bilingual education theorists had claimed that it took seven to ten years for a young child to learn English” (Unz 3). He also said, “ everyone now recognized that just a few months were usually time enough, with the new goal being for Latino children to learn English in pre-school” ” (Unz 3). It is clear that the time of learning English is faster than bilingual language student. Thus, Unz thought the bilingual English that is not necessary for students and English Only is better than that. Bilingual education is not accessible y for students. I have a personal experience in my life. In the high school, teachers taught us by English and this process was not a good memory for me. I have to use English to study Math, Physics, Chemistry, and I cannot completely understand. So for this article, the author though the English only is more helpful for …show more content…
They all use the example of California. Rovira used the California example to evidence some cities prohibiting bilingual education, and their decision is not right. Unz also wrote the California example at the beginning of his article and he wrote the California will restore bilingual education, which means that the English only will not implement. This behavior also is not right. They used the same example to show the different opinions. Also, Rovira and Unz use facts. For Rovira, she wrote the case about Cincinnati. In Cincinnati, this city implemented bilingual education, and they provide the instruction of other languages. For the article by Unz also use facts, he said the grade of students had significant improvement because they use intensive English immersion. Besides, they all use statistics in their articles. For example, Unz wrote, “Hence the 8-to-0 committee vote to reestablished bilingual education in California.”(Unz, 2). They use same pieces of evidence – examples, facts, and statistics, which makes their article more convincing. We can research this information, and it exists, which means that their evidence are convincing, and we can trust them. That evidence is about the bilingual education, and they are