The title claims that it will provide the reader with “The Healthy Drink You Should Replace [coffee] With.” At no point in the article is this done. Instead, Dillan provides a link to another article, once again to the same website, titled “3 Steps to Substitute Coffee and Effective Caffeine Withdrawal.” This makes it apparent that the author does not have an interest in truly providing the reader with the information contained in his article, and instead is more concerned with the hits to the website that he works for in an effort to make more ad revenue. An informative article should contain at the very least what is in the title. Instead, Dillan’s article skips an entire half of its own title, unlike Gunnars’ which provides exactly what it claims – health benefits of coffee based on science. This is another reason why Gunnars’ article is significantly more informative than
The title claims that it will provide the reader with “The Healthy Drink You Should Replace [coffee] With.” At no point in the article is this done. Instead, Dillan provides a link to another article, once again to the same website, titled “3 Steps to Substitute Coffee and Effective Caffeine Withdrawal.” This makes it apparent that the author does not have an interest in truly providing the reader with the information contained in his article, and instead is more concerned with the hits to the website that he works for in an effort to make more ad revenue. An informative article should contain at the very least what is in the title. Instead, Dillan’s article skips an entire half of its own title, unlike Gunnars’ which provides exactly what it claims – health benefits of coffee based on science. This is another reason why Gunnars’ article is significantly more informative than