Item1
Lộ diện “đứa con tin đồn” của Justin Bieber
Dân Việt - Trên trang bìa tạp chí Star, “đứa con tin đồn” của Justin Bieber chính thức lộ diện. Tuy nhiên, theo TMZ, hoàng tử teen pop Justin Bieber đã phủ nhận thông tin “trót” có con với “gái già”.
“Đứa con tin đồn” của Justin Bieber thực chất được 3 tháng tuổi chứ không phải vẫn nằm trong bụng mẹ như đã đưa.
Dù chưa có bất cứ phản hồi nào nhưng trên Facebook và Twitter, Justin đã “lặng lẽ” trấn an các fan: “Tất cả chỉ là những tin đồn, chuyện phiếm…Tôi đang cố gắng lờ đi những tin đồn này để tập trung vào âm nhạc. Hãy đánh giá những gì thực tế một chút. Yêu tất cả các bạn”.
Type: emotive language
Analysis: In this article, the author used extremely emotive language such as “trót”, “gái già”, “ “Đứa con tin đồn” của Justin Bieber thực chất được 3 tháng tuổi chứ không phải vẫn nằm trong bụng mẹ như đã đưa”, “lặng lẽ”. Especially, the headline is not really true. This piece information is just a rumour, and is still check to get an exact result. His article will make the readers misunderstand that Justin Bieber has a baby is a truth by using this emotive language. He can use the emotive language but he can not make a bias in this information.
Item2
Type: discrimination
Analysis: this picture shows an unequal treatment between men and women. These men are sitting, watching TV, and drinking beer. However, the woman in that house is working housework. It seems that men are not need to be responsible for housework. This is sex discrimination between male and female.
Item 3
Could playing videogames make your child more creative?
Many parents imagine that playing videogames is just an enormous waste of time - or that the games might even be damaging their children.
And watching youngsters glued to the relentless laser battles of the latest space-war game, it's difficult not to agree.
But a new study from the
It's in stark contrast to previous studies which hinted that games stunt children's development and even make them more violent.
The current study didn't attempt to address either of these issues - but used a recognised measure of creativity to assess the effect of games on children's development.
A study of nearly 500 12-year-olds found that the more kids played video games, the more creative they were in
Source:
Type: Omission bias
Analyst: The result of this research is not persuasive. It shows that “it is in stark contrast to previous studies”. It is not acceptable because this study just concentrate on the impacts of video games on creativity but others study the effects on the other aspects. In addition, it is said that video games has both negative and positive effects on children. Secondly, the research only studies 12-year-olds. It should include other age group in this surveys to make it more exact. Lastly, it does not mention what types or name of video games. In real life, there are many extremely violent, sexual stimulate games, etc. They make the readers wonder that whether these kinds of games also develop children’s creativity.
Sources:
http://danviet.vn/64200p1c30/lo-dien-dua-con-tin-don-cua-justin-bieber.htm
I notice that your items are very interesting and I like them very much. Here will be some comments I suggest for your entry:
Trả lờiXóa+ Item 1: You should pay more attention to some mistakes about spelling in the items (This piece of information ... and need to be checked to get an exact result)
And about your last sentence " He can use the emotive language but he can not make a bias in this information", I don't agree with it.
+ Item 2: it is ok
+ Item 3: your analysis is fairly good. And I think that in this item, there is also assumption because to prove that video games are good for children, he only bases on the study of 12-year-old children, it is not persuasive enough.
In my opinion, your items are very nice. I really like them.
Trả lờiXóaHowever, I still have some comments for your job
You should balance font among 3 items and display them clearly and scientifically => easy for us to follow
Item 1: it is quite good with sufficient analysis (you should consider Huong’s comment)
Item 2: it’s sufficient
Item 3: I think there is still an assumption ( he only bases on the study of 12-year-old children; therefore ,it is not persuasive enough)