D#6HW#9

I'm going to do this on the same source, the toy frenzy article in the Christian Science Monitor.

1. The writer uses good examples to support his topic sentence that the frenzy around toys can be created or manipulated.
2. however, when i re-read the article, the "facts" aren't scientific or statistical. They're more anectdotal or stories, and not really supported by hard evidence.
3. The writer gives examples to support his statement. I was convinced because I've seen the news reports and the long lines and logically it makes sense that reports on long lines can make people think they have to have the toy, too.
4. However, he doesn't quote any psychologists to support this. Or any studies that show the effect of media reports on consumers. Hmmm... I may have to rethink using this one!
5. I don't think he's really biased. But he definitely shows a bit of disdain for the buying frenzy. I wonder if my tone will be different because I find myself in those long lines!
6. He could have added harder evidence to help support his article.
7. He doesn't offer any other explanations for it. Maybe there really is something mental that drives the need for the toys. Or maybe there's an individual's explanation (like the need to have something better than a friend or neighbor) that he should have looked into.
8. I just answered that. He should have looked beyond just the media's role. I would have been interested in learninbg more about how the manufacturers create buzz. What's the "circuit" they go on? Have there been any toys that did the circuit and werne't a big hit?
9. There were no visuals in the copy i had (although there was a caption to one that was maybe published with the original).
10. No charts of graphs.
11. The reasoning is totally valid, it just isn't backed up by anything substantial.
12. I think he could have used sweeping generalizations about how much the media has contributed to the success of toys.
13. No. EVerything was easy to understand in this article.
14. I think he makes logical inferences that maybe aren't fully supported.
15. He uses direct quotes where applicable.

THis was an interesting way to look at a source that i thought was great. But maybe as I apply this to other sources, I might find that not many pass these rigorous standards. Really, I have to ask myself, who can pass this test? And how many "failed points" will i accept before deciding I can't use them?