what grade would you give this response to article englishWatch
Firstly, thepurpose of your article is not to argue against child benefits because you havenot made it clear in the title of your article, and in your ‘ethical’ title youcompare an innocent child to an animal (instead of making a formal introduction).You are trying to offend the people glancing at your title and in doing so, youhope to encourage them to read and open your article and read it just to learnabout the one and only: Liz Jones; You then get the attention that youundoubtedly crave for. This is supported by the fact that this article is inthe form of a tabloid, which is known for sensationalizing news, which is clearin your title and containing a vast amount of informal language, which is alsoclear in your article, e.g. ‘chattering classes beating their breasts’ . Yourpathetic attention seeking is also fiercely supported by what you write in thearticle: ‘I read subtitles’ to show that your profession is journalism, but whyyou included this undoubtedly unnecessary fact when the purpose of your articleis to argue against child benefits? This illiterate and informal quote isstrong evidence that the only real purpose of your article is for the light tobe shone on you- no one else and nothing else.
Secondly, youonly care about yourself and you most definitely do not care about who’sreading your tabloid. You state that you can’t stand ‘self-important, overconfident prigs,’ but this is arrogantstatement is contradictory to the approximately seventy-three times, which youhave repeated the letter, ‘I’ in your article. The infinite repetitions of the letter, notonly shows that you are an ‘overconfident prig,’ which you have accused othersof, but unequivocally shows that you are not considerate of the thousands ofpeople reading your article, therefore how can you expect the reader to feelsympathy or agree with you, when you make the article seem about you and no oneelse?
The repetitions could explain the lack of statistics or factsin your tabloid because you make presumptions that are not backed up by anystrong evidence. For example, you try to use a personal anecdote: ‘I have afriend whose daughter is on benefits’ and ‘why should I fund a women who can’tbe bothered to use birth control’. You are hoping to make the reader feelsympathy for you, but this inconsiderate statement shows you are making presumptionsthat everyone who cannot afford to have a child would use birth control. Do you know the reason why your friend had achild? No you do not, so it is a rash and bold statement that has not a shredof evidence to back it up.
Thirdly, you constantly seek every opportunity to offend thereader by making yourself seem superior. You make the point that the‘chattering classes wail so loudly and beat their breasts’ about a women’sright to reproduce and you think theybelieve their lifestyle choice is the ‘superior one’. Since youclearly are not a part of the ‘chattering classes’, you arrogantly think yourlifestyle is superior due to that belittling statement, so every women livingapparently has an inferior lifestyle to yours. However you are ignorantlycomparing a gorilla to a woman because apparently, they ‘beat their breasts’;you are once again making the presumption that a woman cares about her ownrights for the sake of competition because they thing their lifestyle is the‘superior’ one. It will come as no surprise that you are making radical statementsagain, that are not backed up by evidence or statistics and you go further tocompare women to beasts-do you think that is a rational statement? Constantly,you try and make the reader feel like a woman rambling on about her rightsmeans as much as dirt from the ground, which you have no right to do. But youdo not know why a woman reproduces because you haven’t done any research basedon it. How can you have the audacity to criticize something as natural asreproduction? It is a natural and vital process that cannot be abolished. Itshows love, compassion and keeps alive the human race; it is the mostfundamental right for women, for you to argue against that is unnatural andimmoral. To conclude, your article and opinions lack evidence and statisticsto support your point of view- which is vital. You cannot expect the reader toagree with your rash and bold statements, if they are not backed up by solidproof. You also do not take your own article seriously, due to the fact that itis in the form of a tabloid. For such a serious issue, a broadsheet would bemore appropriate as your article would be formal, literate and the reader wouldbe more likely to agree with you. Finally you use past experiences that fail tomake the reader sympathize with you, due to the rash and bold statements youwrite such as: ‘why should I fund a woman who can’t be bothered to use birthcontrol’? Blatantly, this shows you aremaking presumptions that a woman doesn’t have the right to reproduce if theyare poor- it is a rash and offensive presumption, which you should have thoughttwice about. Overall, I hope you have read diligently my response; I hope youlearn from it for future articles that you may write.
Yours faithfully,Shawn Salah basG�Y�O