Article of the Week Ten

Comparing two articles on the same topic:

Why do parents buy chicken pox lollies?  see link here

Vs

Swapping chicken pox-infected lollipops is illegal  see link here

Both of these articles are on exactly the same topic and yet they take them in opposite directions. The article "Swapping chicken pox-infected lollipops is illegal" describes how dangerous and stupid the practice is, whereas the article "Why do parents buy chicken pox lollies?" acknowledges the dangers but then goes on to describe why parents would even consider it. "Swapping...illegal" is very onesided, it doesn't acknowledge the opposing side once. This makes it a much less appealing article because it doesnt establish a great quantity of credibility. It also establishes a very negative and rude tone towards anyone who could be on the otherside of the controversy. Either the author did not seem to have in mind the reactions of his audience while writing, or he wanted to have that reaction from the audience. The "Why" author does establish that he sees the practice as dangerous and uneducated, but he goes on to describe why the other side may be willing to make the risk. The author sympathizes with the opposing side. This makes me much more inclined to side with the author, and believe him to be more credible. The tone of this article is more...calm. The author seems to say, this is what I think, this is why, this is why what others may say is not what you should think, but you can decide for yourself what you will think (obviously though, what I think is right). He includes plenty of facts and data to further support his view and his overall presentation or delivery is much more pleasing than the previous article. The author for for the "why" article therefore was more successful in turning his audience to think his way than the other.