Article review
This article review provides a comprehensive description of the author’s strengths and weaknesses in various aspects of scholarly writing. The author opened the paragraph with a clear and simple statement that is instrumental in introducing the subject matter. However, he fails to offer a captivating introduction to the statement in the sentences that follow. Moreover, the adoption of titles that cannot be justified for the personal computer fails the threshold required for scholarly writing. The opinion of the writer is lumped into a general statement. This makes it hard for the leader to decipher the intricate details of the paragraph. The quality of the paragraph can be challenged on the appropriate use of language. In scholarly writing, some pertinent grammar rules must be observed. It is clear that the author ignores these rules on several occasions (Meyer, 2011).
The author’s biasness can be noted when an assumption is presented that the problem of the digital divide is over. Quality evidence is not provided to substantiate this statement. The opinion of the author should not be presented as a fact in a scholarly writing. This allows for a biased outlook of the paragraph. The author exhibits a weakness in scholarly writing when he asks a rhetorical question and fails to provide a comprehensive answer over the subject matter. Moreover, rhetorical questions in scholarly writing should be avoided. The failure to provide quality evidence on the statements made in the paragraph reduces its credibility. Such statements strongly indicate the influence of personal bias and misrepresentation of opinions. In terms of the audience and the purpose of the paragraph, the author successfully captures some statics about the digital divide. This enhances the appropriateness of the article to the target audience.
References
Meyer, F. (2011). Crossed words: criticism in scholarly writing. Bern: Peter Lang.
