A Critique of Articles

The two articles in question are Peter A.Brown’s “Restoring Perspective: $1000 for the prom is immoral” and Mitchell Farnum’s “ Color me Pro-choice”.

First, let us discuss Brown’s article “Restoring Perspective”. I have never heard of Peter A.Brown before and if this is the kind of stuff he churns out, then I’ll say “Thank you God” if I never have to read another word of Brown’s composition’s in my life. If somebody thinks that’s a little extreme, then let me point out Brown’s shortcomings in the literary sense. Brown straight away succeeds in alienating the reader by forming two different groups.

There is nothing wrong in having two different groups for instance America has been well served by two party democracy. However, Brown does not make distinctions based in political beliefs. He divides his readers to two types who are “ People who hail the principal as a hero, like him” and “ all those ignorant others” who are teaching American kids not to respect the value of money.

Having defined his groups, he defends his group as people as people with ‘abundant common sense ‘ and the opposite group as supporters of ‘the culture of affluence” . Another phrase he uses to define the ‘you” group is indulgers in the “immoral wastage of money”

The funny thing is that his argument does have a point but since he wants to ram it down my throat, my defense mechanism immediately gets my hackles up. His tone is arrogant , his words pompous such as “decadence”. His tone so repulses me that I get deaf to what he says.

Brown could have said that this principal did this. I think it’s a good thing ..because of this and this, and what is your opinion, he could have asked. He does the same thing but he does it like” ‘I‘m a leper and he is in a passing limousine. Well, my verdict is thumbs down on Brown and it would have been the same if Brown had been a gladiator and I would have been a roman centurion.

On the other hand, Mitchell Farnum gets a smile out of me although he...