Critiquing an Article

Points to remember

Notes

1. The author values human life. In his view, the American government should not only provide support to its ailing citizens, but also strive to aid the disaster struck individuals in poor countries.

These impressive results from an intercession between personal values and established facts. In this case, I am a staunch Christian who believes in the abundance of life. This includes fulfilling the responsibility to support the poor and the sick. According to the scriptures, man shall pay tithes and once they have paid it all, in the third year they shall give to the Levite, the stranger, orphan and the widow (Deut 26:12, KJV). Also, only the righteous are concerned with the poor while the wicked ignore such Godly concerns (Proverbs 29:7, KJV). From a factual perspective, the author mentions the importance of preventing death in several instances. He also notes that the value of human life does not decrease when one crosses boundaries (Stinger, 2009)

2. The article is not meant for students only, but for the broader population in the United States

This impression is factual. The author identifies the roles of various professionals, including lawyers, doctors, psychologists and engineers in generating solutions for the poverty struck countries. For example, he says that engineers should develop sustainable methods of generating electricity in the underdeveloped world (Stinger, 2009) This means that immediate change can only be achieved if current professionals implement the recommendations of the article now.

3. It is compelling. For instance, the author requires U.S citizens to contribute part of their income to a kitty for supporting the poor

This is value based. I feel that force is not the word to use here. Rather, the way the author puts his arguments leaves little option to do the opposite. He convinces his audience that the U.S lags behind other countries like Norway in providing aid to the poor (Stinger, 2009). He also uses survey results to justify that citizens should contribute part of their incomes to charity. In this way, every critical reader finds the article not only analytical but also compelling in its approach.

4. The article is educative and an eye-opener to many U.S citizens. Its teaching can impact the future generations positively

The educative characteristics of the article are factual. It is evident that many Americans are ignorant of the fact that the government spends too little on foreign aid reaching out to the poor. According to Stinger (2009), the government only spends 16 cents out of $100 of income. However, many Americans, prior to reading this article felt that the government was spending too much on foreign aid and would have considered a move to cut down on such costs as positive. The article also touches on the specific problems faced by the 1.4 billion people living below the poverty line. All these are meant to open the eyes of readers on the importance of giving to the poor.

5. It focuses on the most critical aspects of foreign aid that should not be ignored in the coming future

This is a value based impression. In my career as a psychologist, I am occasionally moved by the suffering and misery that children in poor background have to face while growing up. I relate these problems to the development stages provided by Freud. Undoubtedly, the harsh conditions impact the child’s development and they may not lead normal lives (Clifford, 2015). With this in mind, the recommendations provided by Stinger (2009) should not be ignored at least in the near future.

6. I also got the impression that the article prioritizes expenditure in helping the inhabitants of the poorest countries rather than spending money in quelling war

The sixth impression is factual. In his article, Stinger(2009) is skeptical of the large budgets spent by the United states in Iraq, Afghanistan and other war struck regions at the expense of providing aid to the poor. In this case, Iraq alone got approximately 20% of the foreign aid in 2007. Interestingly, though the total amount of aid that went to all OECD countries amounted to only 25% of the aid.