A Critique of Seirian Sumner and Nathalie Pettorelli's The High Cost of Being a Woman
A Critique of Seirian Sumner and Nathalie Pettorelli’s
“The High Cost of Being a Woman”
Outline
Introduction
- Open statement: woman did not have much power in ancient days
- Author’s thesis: Authors claim that women are leaving Science
- Thesis: The authors fail to convince the reader that women are rarely in science due to lack of references
Summary
Analysis a) Evidence
- No source for statistics and percentage
- Hasty generation
- Arguments lack of coherent
b) Style and voice
- Loaded language
- Contrast
- Tone
Response/Conclusion
- Disagree
- Overall, the article might be provoking, but the lacks of sources cause her argument invalid.
Introduction
Back in the ancient days, women did not have much authority to do anything. They cannot go to school or even cannot go to work. They have to stay at home to do all the compromises and take care of the child. Then, the husband is the one who work to be able to feed his wife and children. This traditional convention is broken in the early 90th century, during the rise of feminist. Even though, in today’s society, girls are allowed to go to school and even have a high education, but some abandon this chance to have a “upper class” jobs and study advanced subject such as chemistry, physics, computing, biology...and so on which is also promoted in one of the articles published in the magazine New Scientist, Sumner and Pettorelli claim that woman are leaving sciences. However, the authors fail to convince the reader that women are rarely in science due to lack of references and empirical data.
Summary In the article “The High Cost of Being a Woman”, the authors begin by explaining that few girls choose science at school and the percentage of girls dropping this subject is high, but the problem becomes more serious after their graduation. The percentage of undergraduates drops so dramatically, thus, there are not many women in the domain of science overall. Becoming a
“The High Cost of Being a Woman”
Outline
Introduction
- Open statement: woman did not have much power in ancient days
- Author’s thesis: Authors claim that women are leaving Science
- Thesis: The authors fail to convince the reader that women are rarely in science due to lack of references
Summary
Analysis a) Evidence
- No source for statistics and percentage
- Hasty generation
- Arguments lack of coherent
b) Style and voice
- Loaded language
- Contrast
- Tone
Response/Conclusion
- Disagree
- Overall, the article might be provoking, but the lacks of sources cause her argument invalid.
Introduction
Back in the ancient days, women did not have much authority to do anything. They cannot go to school or even cannot go to work. They have to stay at home to do all the compromises and take care of the child. Then, the husband is the one who work to be able to feed his wife and children. This traditional convention is broken in the early 90th century, during the rise of feminist. Even though, in today’s society, girls are allowed to go to school and even have a high education, but some abandon this chance to have a “upper class” jobs and study advanced subject such as chemistry, physics, computing, biology...and so on which is also promoted in one of the articles published in the magazine New Scientist, Sumner and Pettorelli claim that woman are leaving sciences. However, the authors fail to convince the reader that women are rarely in science due to lack of references and empirical data.
Summary In the article “The High Cost of Being a Woman”, the authors begin by explaining that few girls choose science at school and the percentage of girls dropping this subject is high, but the problem becomes more serious after their graduation. The percentage of undergraduates drops so dramatically, thus, there are not many women in the domain of science overall. Becoming a
References: Hammer, Kate. (2010, October 16). Where are all the boys? The Globe and Mail, 12-13 Sumner, S., E, Pettorelli, N. (2011, July 16). The high cost of being a woman. New Scientist, 211, 26-27