Article Critique: Why Long-Time Consumption of Soyfoods Reduces Breast Cancer Recurrence
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
BIOL 1322
The newspaper/magazine article I am critiquing comes from:
Science Daily: Animal study shows why long-time consumption of soyfoods reduces breast cancer recurrence, April 19, 2015
NOTE: You are only required to submit a copy of the article if requested to do so by your professor.
Answer the following questions:
1. What sort of language does the writer use? Do the words imply sensationalism or conclusive findings? Phrases such as “startling revelation” or “now we know” or “the study proved” are clues to whether the report is a sensational one. Does the author take a tentative approach, using words such as may, might, or could? What do these words imply?
I evaluate the language used in the publication as follows:
This article implies conclusive findings. The author uses the study “confirmed.”
2. Is the finding placed in the context of previous nutrition findings? Does the article imply that the current finding wipes out all that has gone before it? Can you detect a broad understanding of nutrition on the writer’s part? From what clues? For example, an article about folate and heart disease should say that saturated fat probably plays the major nutrition role in heart disease development.
I believe the author’s understanding of previously reported findings to be:
The findings are based upon a previous study. With the new study it does show new findings that increased amounts of soy can reduce cancer cells growth. Previously it was thought that increased amounts of soy activated estrogen receptors and would make cancer cells grow.
The author has a very broad understanding on this subject matter; they continually include the studies findings and give you a wide understanding of the background behind the study and previous studies so you understand what you are dealing with.
3. Does the article mention whether the research results under discussion are published in a medical or nutrition journal? Where? Does the
BIOL 1322
The newspaper/magazine article I am critiquing comes from:
Science Daily: Animal study shows why long-time consumption of soyfoods reduces breast cancer recurrence, April 19, 2015
NOTE: You are only required to submit a copy of the article if requested to do so by your professor.
Answer the following questions:
1. What sort of language does the writer use? Do the words imply sensationalism or conclusive findings? Phrases such as “startling revelation” or “now we know” or “the study proved” are clues to whether the report is a sensational one. Does the author take a tentative approach, using words such as may, might, or could? What do these words imply?
I evaluate the language used in the publication as follows:
This article implies conclusive findings. The author uses the study “confirmed.”
2. Is the finding placed in the context of previous nutrition findings? Does the article imply that the current finding wipes out all that has gone before it? Can you detect a broad understanding of nutrition on the writer’s part? From what clues? For example, an article about folate and heart disease should say that saturated fat probably plays the major nutrition role in heart disease development.
I believe the author’s understanding of previously reported findings to be:
The findings are based upon a previous study. With the new study it does show new findings that increased amounts of soy can reduce cancer cells growth. Previously it was thought that increased amounts of soy activated estrogen receptors and would make cancer cells grow.
The author has a very broad understanding on this subject matter; they continually include the studies findings and give you a wide understanding of the background behind the study and previous studies so you understand what you are dealing with.
3. Does the article mention whether the research results under discussion are published in a medical or nutrition journal? Where? Does the