Critical response of Molloy and Grove’s article
H1N1 is a swine flu which was outbreak all over the world in 2009 and
2010.Molloy and Grove both discuss the action that government take to
solve this crisis, but have very different views about its value. While
Grove is positive about the effort that government did, Molloy is highly
skeptical. He argues that H1N1 is not as serious as we expect and
government has overreacted the consequence of the swine flu. By
contrast, Grove is in support of the measures of government to H1N1
although he deems there are some problems with management of the
Molloy and Grove offer different perspectives on government’s
management. The strength of Grove’s viewpoint is that he illustrates
two sides of the event. He points out government’s management is
correct and should be improved. However, Molloy only focuses on
the negative side of it. On the other hand, Molloy lists many data to
support his argument while Grove just expresses his personal ideas
\The strength of Grove’s viewpoint is its dialectics. Firstly, he states
that government’s effort is advisable. As he said, ‘In case like this, it is always far better to overprepare than to underprepare. It is a smart
statement. Then he points out that there are some problems with the
supply of vaccine and puts forward the solution way. The author
finds the correct way to solve this problem.
However, Grove doesn’t use any evidence to support his ideas, so his
article seems subjective. Although he is a doctor, we don’t know
how authoritative he is in this area. So anyone can object his opinion
as long as the person can express some useful counter arguments.
Grove’s viewpoints seems a little weak without evidence.
By contrast, Molloy lists much evidence in his article. He uses many
data to illustrate the...