‘It
is still beauty before brain’,
This
article, by Chok Suat Ling is mainly focusing on issue faced by women where
they are being judged based on their look rather than their intelligence and
other skills.
We can
see that the author was actually being biased because she was only mentioning
about women being judged by looks, making it looks like only the women are
being treated in such way. She did not mention anything about men having the
same issue. She also tried to gain support on her article from the female
readers by saying “so why do we need men”.
Next,
the author used so many examples in her article but failed to elaborate and
give clear references on those examples, making her statements questionable. For
instance, she gave out a statement saying “a survey done by a women’s magazine…”
in paragraph 5. The name, author and the publishing date of the magazine was
not mentioned.
Finally,
the choice of words used was clear and understandable. It can be said that a wide
range of people are able to understand the ideas from this article. However, the
word ‘carpus callosum’ cannot be understood by all readers.
In conclusion,
the author has a clear intention on the issue she raised though being bias.
Ravin Rao, I disagree that the words used are clear and understandable.At first and second glance, do we, even as educated readers know the context of this part of the sentence "Girls also have a thicker corpus callosum -- they are "wired" differently" unless we have completed reading the sentence till the end. Besides, the author mentions as so “ Is it any wonder that many are willing to undergo injections,fillers, laser treatments and electrophoresis – all procedures familiar to those abducted by aliens to look picture perfect?” What can we realistically interpret from this sentence? Even if aliens do abduct humans, would they experiment our race or make us look better in appearance. The organization of her article is disfigured. Casual readers could get confused as to what message the author is trying to convey.
ReplyDeleteShegkar, when i said the words used are clear and understandable, i only meant the words and not the sentences. There is no word that is hard to be understood except 'corpus callosum'. The sentences are indeed confusing for any readers. I also agree that the organization is disfigured as we can clearly see that there is no correlation at all between the first and last paragraph.
DeleteWell Ravin, sorry that I misinterpreted you point and it is good to know that you do agree with me that there are misleading sentences in the article.
ReplyDelete