The newspaper/magazine article I am critiquing comes from:
Women’s Health , dated November/December 2005 . (Name of Publication)
NOTE: Attach a copy of the article to this report.
Answer the following questions:
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: The writer’s language in this article is factual. There is not sensationalism used; only factual information regarding the importance of vitamins and minerals is discussed. The author provides a persuasive recommendation of vitamin brands to buy and provides tips on how to prevent side effects such as upset stomach and burping when taking vitamin supplements
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: I believe the author understands the previously reported findings to be accurate. The author quotes several physicians throughout the article that substantiate the information provided. This article does not imply that the current information wipes out all that has gone before it. I can tell that the author has a good understanding of nutrition based on the supportive statements from...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document