After reading two of the articles, write a one-paragraph response to each. Consider the following questions for each editorial [your commentary need not be in this order]:
-How does the author of the news article support a specific position on the issue? Provide an example of this slanted perspective.
-What is your personal opinion on the subject under debate? Why do you support/ refute the article's points? [ex. Cigarettes- Why would you take the job/ not take the job?; Locked away- How old do you think an individual needs to be to tell right from wrong?; Global warming- What does your diet mostly consist of?; Distraction- Who do you know that texts while driving?]
-What statistics/ collected data/ pictures/ etc. does the author choose to make his/ her point(s) in the editorial? How are they effective?
The author of the news article driven to distraction was clearly against texting and driving. He shows scenerios where people have been killed and injured because of it. I support the author with that texting and driving is wrong. You can't drive properly when your eyes are focused on your phone and not the road. It is not a big deal to wait a little bit and text the person back after you are done driving. Statistics they show are it is just as unsafe as drinking and driving. also 2,600 estimated annual traffic death cause by cellphone distractions. 97% of Americans who support laws that prohibit texting while driving. 17 number of states that have banned texting while driving.
Th author of Should I take a Job Promoting Cigarettes tells the person to not take the job. I agree with this. if you know something is morally wrong then you should not promote it. The more help they get with promoting, the more cigarettes they sell, and the more people will die. A statistic they use is that more than 400,000 deaths in the U.s are due to smoking.
No comments:
Post a Comment