Michael Schmidt writes
his article regarding the possible American military move on Syria. Schmidt
focus on showing the U.S. government’s doubt if a military action would be the
best choice. He presents the two sides of the story. First, he starts his article
by showing an interview with Bashar al-Assad, presenting the leader’s point of
view. Assad states that he wasn’t responsible for the chemical attacks against
Syrian citizens, and that if attacked, Syria would most likely retaliate. Schmidt
then moves on to present the voice of the American politicians. He presents
different politician and their opinions about the attacks.
Schmidt writes his
essay with great grammar and vocabulary choice. He also provides the readers
with enough information to introduce them to the topic, and also interviews
with people related to his topic to make his essay even more credible. The
author, by presenting enough information from both sides (American Government
and Assad) and omitting his own opinions, allowed the reader to take it’s own
conclusion of the situation so far. Schmidt ends his article by providing dates
of Obama’s future interviews regarding his military move. And by doing such,
the author helps the reader to keep following the news of the article he wrote
about.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/middleeast/assad-denies-gas-attack-white-house-presses-a-strike.html?hpw&_r=0
The first paragraph was good in summarizing what the essay was about. The second, however didn´t really explain what the author´s purpose was. Overall it wasa good post but could have been clearer about the thesis.
ReplyDeleteHey Jane! So your vocabulary was good but there are just a few awkward phrases and grammatical errors (but I think it was mostly by accident). Anyway, I think your analysis was also pretty good but try to talk about the purpose, tone, and audience of the selection as well. Good job! :)
ReplyDelete