Non Fiction Critical Analysis
In the article “return of the measles”
from upfront magazine, it talks about hoe people are surprised that the measles
are coming back. And that some people choose to have shots for it. I noticed that the author uses many things to
convince the reader that this is happening. One very strong way the author does
this is by using statistics. This helps the reader understand the text because it
helps us understand the dangerousness of the measles.
In the article, it talks about how
the measles are a real thing and that they are coming back. They start off by
the reader that America thought that it was eliminated in 2000, but we recently
got a surprise that they were in fact, not eliminated, and are coming back. It all
started with in an outbreak in popular amusment park, Disney world. Many people
were concerned. Also, some people with terminal illnesses would be in a lot of
danger if they were infected the measles. The article really talks about how
some people choose not to get shots because “they don’t like the chemicals
going in their/their kids bodies” the author uses statstics to show how these
people are affect themselves and others, and how that is bad.
The strongest way the author shows
the dangerousness of the measles is statistics. Statistics help the reader
understand the text because they make the problem seem worse. Without statistics,
the reader would never get an actual sense of how bad the measles are. They would
just know that they are bad, but they wouldn’t have a rating of how bad the
situation is. They would only be hearing someone else’s opinion of the
sickness. When people are given statistics, they are alowed to heave their own
opinion based on facts.
To conclude, using statistics is very
different than just using facts. Statistics are cold numbers that have no
opinion whatsoever, so that people can base their own thoughts off of that. This
can help the reader understand the text better and the whole claim of the
article, which was the measles is a very dangerous disease, and people who
choose not to get shots, are putting themselves, and other people’s lives in
danger. And that isn’t fair.
I really liked how you elaborated on the use of statistics in the article. But to improve you could have gathered more examples of the author's craft and conclude on the information you have as a whole. That way you'd seem more professional in your criticism because you can't really base an idea on one piece of evidence. Other than that and some grammatical errors this was a well-written critical analysis.
ReplyDelete