This person is misguided in the argument. The syntax is very nice. This is useful for me.
This article does a good job of appealing to human emotion. It evokes sympathy. It does this by talking about all the good that happened.
This article was super good. The author used humor, stats and other things to support the argument. This was a good mother text. Bad spacing.
This article was boring. It served its purpose well and had good spacing. Other than that there is nothing worth using.
I chose this article because you told me a had dragon energy. The article uses back to back quotes several times to strengthen the report. This is a tactic that if I use I think I would struggle to excecute. I may try to implement this in the name of risk taking.
This article was a simple read. The problem was the spacing, which I will not use. Between every sentence there was about three lines. This made the article choppy and annoying to read.
This article was very boring. The worst part about it was throughout the article there would be side stories planted with their own header. This just made it confusing and a hard read. When writing I have to remember to keep it simple because people are stupid.
This article did a good job with spacing and length. The author made it simply as long as it required. This helped me stay engaged which is a good tactic for my paper because I tend to get of track with rants.
This article did a very good job in turning a funny topic into a funny story. I really like the use of slashes to illustrate multiple points. The author did not get lost in the humor sauce. The slashes would be an ideal take away for me.
This article is an informative news article. It serves the purpose it was given well. The other news articles I have read were boring, but the use of common expressions made this one enjoyable.
What a joke. This article seems so dumb. Its as if a 4th grader wrote this. Its about six sentences long with very basic language. The whole idea of the paper doomed it from the start. I feel a good writer could have made it decent, but this was not the case hear. Gross FAKE NEWS.
Finally a good article. The author did a fantastic job getting the news across while still showing passion and love for the topic. The thing I would most take away from this was the hook and metaphor usage. The opening part of this she used the hook of a new Civil War. This idea gets people who would otherwise not be interested in the Supreme Court v Whitehouse. The use of very good metaphors reals you back in overtime you get bored throughout the paper. Thats a really great idea and something I will pursue.
If I had to choose one word to describe this article what would it be? Quite simply mediocre. The topic interested me which is probably why it was only mediocre. The font was gross. Nothing special about the spacing. Just nothing to write home about. This is yet another news article that falls short of my standards set by the first article I read. These author need to step it up.
I have very little good things to say about this article. Truly the only good thing I can say is the spacing was nice and organized. Here comes the bad. The article- to start- was incredibly boring. The author uses little passion in the article. Another factor contributing to the boring nature was the facts were played out in the worst way possible. It is possible the least engaging article have read yet. The article sucked to be quite frank.
This was a very interesting and well written article. Quotes were incorporated elegantly. The author also did one of my favorite things in writting, asked questions. This forces a reader to be engaged and think before you answer the question. In this article the questions were interesting to the point of making you want to read the answer. The passion from the author is present even in a news piece.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. I agreed with the stance taken to an extent. I have a complaint though. He started off with a funny tone while giving information. After that, he got lazy. It became informative and not opinionated. The tone gave me great hope which was soon destroyed by the lack of continuity in tone. The topic was good and funny on its own but the author killed it along with my dreams.
This piece is great at showing human stupidity. Just like I'm trying to do with my paper. The article is about how 64% of people polled wanted more exciting wars. The others were either contempt with the amount we have now or didn't know. It also talks about how people you would consider smart like an economist want war to stabilize the economy. The author did a great jobs including humor into their piece. I understand the whole piece is satire, but the piece was still very good.
This was a great and engaging article. It reviewed a movie with passion and moxie. The reader is instantly hooked by the funny and powerful line "an amazing high-school senior, leads a charmed life. First of all, he is actually popular across group lines - breaking a teen-age hierarchy that makes India's caste system look egalit" When reading you don't realize that this is an old review that understands how people still think. The universal idea of being able to get away with anything really attracts the reader. I should use universal ideas to strengthen my point and make the reader more engaged.
Extremely boring. The article is truly does not have to be boring either. The author didn't seem passionate at all. This made it near excruciating to read. This is what I now realize I have to focus a lot on. Portraying my passion is now my top priority. The author seemed like this was a half to write to pay the bills. it should have been I want to. This was a gross article. An interesting idea with a wrong opinion and no passion makes for a terrible article.
This article is about a tradgedy. Big baller brand is getting sued. The great thing about this article is the short concise paragraphs. It keeps the reader engaged. The quotes used were a nice touch. On all of them the quotes were of normal conversation. Language that anyone could understand to actually make it readable. The tone was boring because it is not an opinion piece.
This article isn’t about our best government leader going’s on a randt so to say. Classic puns by me. This shows Rand Paul’s opposition to this constitutionally illiterate document. I really wouldn’t use any of the techniques shown. I would possibly use the same quote integrations. The bland nature is not what you want in a political article. Make it exciting. That’s what I’ll be attempting. This is another no argument.
This article is great. I love the format. Each paragraph or at least most started with a question in bold. This allowed you to know what was up. The author showed their feelings on the issue. They provided extra snippets of reading on the code and things it’s done. The inclusion of questions in the text was a part I really enjoyed. Also they had a part about my favorite person in politics Rand Paul.
Great article. It used questions to make you think. One of my favorite aspects was the charts with evidence showing how horrible the bill is. The strong stance taken gets me fired up and feeling the same way. I would say the font and line spacing was a bad choice. It made it hard to read which fought against everything else to disengage you. Overall the article was strong but my favorite remains the Forbes article because I want the same tone as the author.
The only thing from the article that I would use is the layout. I liked the use of shot paragraphs broken up. It made it very easy to read. My problem with the article is the fact that it didn’t take a stance. A report on a hot press issue like standing for the anthem needs a stance. My essay will be argumentative and this didn’t help me see I good way to do this.
An extraordinarily boring article. The author is doing there job as a straight forward report. This is an example of what not to do. I want to get the information across with some zest and passion. I think that’s the largest problem with the article it lacks passion from the author. The idea of war was skimmed over which is why I couldn’t get interested. She needed to start with an engaging hook that envies fear.
The thing about this article that I would like to try and incorporate into mine was the way she spoke. The author basically called a stranger an idiot for not checking her nutrition facts. That idea of attacking the issue on a small idea that no one pays attention too is very smart. There is little rebuttal anyone can make because no one knows about that piece of information. The one problem I had with this was the argument got old and I was disengaged because it was long. If more ideas were presented it would have been better, which is something I will now do in my paper.
This article was the opposite to the last one I read. It was incredible engaging. It even evoked anger from me some times. The inclusion of graphics made the article seem less like a have to and more like a want to read. I can use important stats from this article in my paper as well. Especially the one about how only one terrorist was convicted under the patriot act who would have been convicted anyway. The argument of founders intent was a great last straw to end on.
This article was incredibly boring and painful to read. The author solely talks about fact in a completely monotone voice. I understand it’s an informative article but the just lack of effort the author used in the article made it a pain to read. They did use good facts for background information, but I would have appreciated a possible stance on the issue.
This article while I disagree with the point of an increase in taxes is awesome. The author is incredible snarky and sarcastic almost to the point of being rude. This wouldn’t work for my article because I’m not speaking about how the president and Congress with few exceptions suck at economic policy. The author pretty much calls potus an idiot. On an economic level this is true. My opposition is the budget and taxes should be cut.
The subtle language she used would be useful in my paper. She talks about the struggle that I will have in my paper talking about Atticus being a good guy. In watchman he is portrayed as a racist. You could tell from her expressions that she and I shared the devistation of finding out the first Atticus. She described him as “a hero and decant man” which is what I’m trying to argue. She finishes driving home social justice and race relations which I’m trying to say he was a champion for.