Brown and Raymond's article
is good because of how it has been put together. It is organised
into numerous separate sections, which turn
a long article into a series of small, easily readable sections.
These mean the person reading can
browse through the piece of writing
and quickly find important pieces of information. These pieces of
information are also easily found
because the start of the piece of writing
gives a brief yet highly detailed outline of what's
in it.
The article is also good because it uses
lots of evidence such as references and statistical data
to back up what the authors say.
In contrast to these strengths, however, the article has
a few bad points. There is bit of a problem because the authors
have used a number of references that are pretty
old in comparison to the publication date of their article.
A bigger issue, however, is the
authors' obvious bias against hospitalisation as a treatment alternative.
|
One of the strengths of Brown and Raymond's
article is its organisation and layout. It is organised into
numerous separate sections, which transform
a reasonably lengthy article into a series of small, easily readable
sections. These enable the reader
to browse through the article and
quickly find important pieces of information. These pieces of information
are also easily located because
the article's introductory paragraph
gives a brief yet highly detailed outline of the
content.
Another of its strengths is the extensive
use of evidence such as references and statistical data to
give validity to the authors' claims. In contrast to these
strengths, however, the article contains
several weaknesses. One minor weakness is that the authors
have used a number of references that are outdated
in comparison to the publication date of their article. Of
greater concern, however, is the authors' obvious bias against
hospitalisation as a treatment alternative. |
