Article

Criteria for Evaluation (MEOW) 

Main argument                

· Does the argument make sense? 

· Does the writer ignore anything? 

· Does the writer make any false assumptions? 

· Do you have any doubts about the argument? 

· Does the argument challenge you? Is it interesting and fresh?  

· Is the argument important?  

· Consider the argument and key concepts from different perspectives, such as a cross-cultural perspective. Does the argument still work? 

· Does he/she accomplish the purpose of this article? 

Evidence 

· What other kinds of information does the author use for support? 

· Is this good quality evidence? Is it credible? 

· Would you like to see more or less of any kind of evidence? 

· Is there enough evidence? Do you think that the author has proven main ideas? 

· If the author uses statistics, does he/she report them carefully? 

· Does the author provide clear, honest information about how he/she did the research? 

· Does the author give you enough information about the sample group?   

· Does the author use effective examples, stories, case studies? 

· Do the examples represent reality? Do the examples show any bias? 

· Does the author apply and discuss the examples? 

Organization 

· Is the article easy for you to follow? 

· Does the organization fit the genre (purpose of the article)? 

· Do the ideas connect to one another smoothly? 

· Is the article repetitive? 

· Does the article include easy to understand divisions? 

· Does the author commit any fallacies? 

· Does the author clearly express the background of the argument? 

Writing style 

· Does the writing style fit the purpose and readers? 

· Does the author use effective vocabulary? 

· Does the author use any language that is biased or not inclusive (racist or insensitive)? 

· Does the author express ideas clearly so that you can understand? 

Main argument: strong and clear 

The author clearly shows his opinion in the first paragraph: “Older Americans are more likely than younger adults to feel their own health is at risk, while younger people are more focused on potential economic threats” (Jones, 2020) 

Jones (2020) states that compared to older Americans, younger Americans more concentrate on economic threats instead of health threats. The article's main argument is strong and convincing, and it is closely combined with the title. 

Clearly, the author shows his argument as younger Americans are concerned more about the financial problems while the older care more about health problems.

Evidence: sufficient and useful 

“Overall, larger shares of U.S. adults view the COVID-19 outbreak as a major threat to the nation’s economy (88%) and the health of the U.S. population as a whole (66%) than to their own finances (49%) and health (36%)” (Jones, 2020, p. 1).

The author provides credible statistical data and clearly indicates that most U.S. adults consider the COVID-19 as a threat to the U.S. economy more than population health. The author of the article cites comprehensive data including percentage statistics on fiscal status, and the comparison of the national economy and population health clearly sees the specific harm of the virus to Americans. 

The author provides a survey that point out most of the Americans believe the coronavirus has impacted their finance but not health. “About as many (24%) say it is a major threat to their finances, but not to their health. Fewer Americans (11%) view the outbreak as a major threat to their health, but not their finances.” Admittedly, the author described his point of view with precise data. Thus, readers are able to understand the attitude of Americans about COVID-19 through the precise data after the survey. 

Evidence: Inconclusive, valueless, outdated 

According to the article "The survey, conducted March 19-24, finds that a quarter of adults say the coronavirus outbreak is a major threat to their personal health and finances" (Jones, 2020). Although its data seems to be comprehensive, including gender, age and so on, the survey report only uses one week's data, and the number of people is not very large, so the survey results can only be regarded as one-sided.

Organization: unclear structure 

the author only uses one sub-heading in this article which is "Views of social distancing activities by party, age" (Jones, 2020). However, this sub-heading is not that related to the topic which is the question of financial or health. It is another topic about party and age. Thus, the structure of this article is clear, and the paragraphs are not correlate to each other.  

The writing style of this article is repetitive because Jones repeated same data and information several times. Not only does Repetitive content fail to help readers understand topics, it also tends to reduce readers’ interest in reading.  "About three-in-ten Democrats (29%) say that COVID-19 is a major threat to their own health and their finances compared with 19% of Republicans who feel the same way. Nearly half of Republicans (47%) say it is not a major threat to either their personal financial situation or their own health; only about a third of Democrats (35%) say the same." (Jones, 2020). It is easy to see that this paragraph uses same words and numbers to explore the truth. Therefore, getting information repeatedly makes the article boring. Therefore, repetitive content in this article makes the writing style weak. 

 

Organization: clear

the author inputs the chart photo and gives the subtitle, it is clear for the reader to understand. "Younger adults less likely than older people to say COVID-19 is primarily a major threat to their health"(Jones, 2020). This is the title of the chart, it explains the main message of the impact of people of different ages on them is that for young people; they generally believe that the impact of the COVID-19 on them is mainly economic, while for the elderly, they feel that the COVID-19 threatens their health.

Writing Style: unacademic 

The article is too repetitive because the author uses the word "threat" for more than 20 times. "Just 6% of those under age 30 say the coronavirus outbreak is a major threat ... while 41% do not view the outbreak as a major threat to either" (Jones, 2020, p. 1). The author uses inefficient vocabulary since there are 6 threats in one paragraph. 

"Aside from age differences, there are also partisan differences in view of the threats of the coronavirus outbreak" (Jones, 2020). As can be seen in this sentence, the author uses "partisan differences" but only focuses on two political parties and does not explain specifically what is meant by partisan differences. 

The tone of the article is unacademic because the author uses the word "say" for more than 20 times. "Aside from age differences, there also are partisan differences in views of the threats from the coronavirus outbreak... Nearly half of Republicans (47%) say it is not a major threat to either their personal financial situation or their own health; only about a third of Democrats (35%) say the same"(Jones, 2020, p. 1). The author should not have used inefficient vocabulary such as "say" and "people". 

Although the organization of the article is repetitive and unclear, Jones (2020) writes an effective article because the main argument is convincing and accomplishes the purpose of the article and the evidence is credible.

Evaluation

First paragraph: Although Jones (202) writes an effective article, the organization of the article is repetitive.

Second paragraph: However, the author writes an effective article because of the convincing main argument.

Third paragraph: The author also writes an effective (THESIS KW=OVERALL EVALUATION) article because of the credible evidence (PARA KW).