Critical EvaluationsCritical evaluation is defined as “an active, thoughtful examination of what you read, hear and see.” The purpose of a critical evaluation is to determine whether or not the authors views are accurate or inaccurate. Not falling victim to manipulation and deception are the results of critically evaluations. Critical evaluations are mostly needed when the work is intended to persuade the reader. Many distinctions have to be made in order for a critical evaluation to happen. This includes distinctions between person and the idea, matters of taste and matters of judgment, fact and interpretation, literal and ironic statements, and language and reality. It is important for a reader to critically evaluate topics such as local and national politics, economics and business news. National and local politics can be riddled with opinions, judgments and otherwise seemingly factual information. It lies solely with the reader to determine whether or not the information is accurate or not.
Ross Douthats article “Why Obama is Winning,” at first glance, can give off mixed. One could assume that the contents in the article could be either fact or opinion. The article though, is filled with a little of both. The article present many statistical findings about the Presidents number before and during his time in office. The author uses facts in this article to explain and defend his opinions and judgments about why Obama is winning. Although there are some facts sprinkled throughout this article, the article is mostly opinion based. The author is talking about why he thinks Obama is winning in the race to the White House. Just because the author is able to provide some factual information about some of the things that Obama has done in office does not mean that his statements are valid and free from errors. Although we are all entitled to our own opinions, if we are defending them, we need facts not just our opinions. If
I have been defending the President since Obama won the Presidential election, I have been giving our own facts. However, if I am criticizing the President or any other elected official during the year that I am doing anything other than defending their election in 2008, I am not necessarily making a commentary to any of that information in a timely manner.
Mr. President, if you do not accept this factual information as factual, please proceed to a debate on how you are going to defend the President. The next period when you are free from errors to express your views, you will no longer have to defend the President at every opportunity, but you are free to use other words. It is an excellent way to speak as a voice for your people as it would be for any other news organization.
There is much that I want to add to this article. There are a number of problems with this article. I will simply state my point here, but I would not be able to say it because the author feels as though he is attempting to cover up a serious issue. I am trying to clarify something, but I cannot offer it as information that does not appear to be fact. On the other hand, the author does not believe this account. The author seems oblivious to the fact that many articles written by people like himself or other writers have been cited and criticized for errors of fact that he fails to acknowledge, if not outright correct. In addition, he fails to acknowledge that his piece has a substantial number of inaccuracies in it. However it is true that this article has no factual flaws that detract from the article above. The first and foremost problem is his ignorance of the subject of this article. He does not know that it is true that there are people who have spent a number of years on the subject without being given the chance to defend themselves. A lot of the stories written by people on the left are factual and factual, but it is not at all clear that their conclusions as to how the President was doing during his time in office really were accurate when it came to that topic. My position is that the subject is more or less important and the best way to have an honest conversation about the subject of the question is simply to make it apparent to the people you are criticizing that they do not necessarily view that as true.
The second problem is that he refuses to understand the issue of political correctness and has no understanding of what is going on with the public at large in regards to this topic. We all can disagree passionately on these issues and it seems that he believes that the right to speak out is the right way to proceed in the United States. This writer would rather be fighting a war than be fighting for a new law. For an article posted by @JamesBriand on March 11, 2014 at 10:42 PM, the author clearly states the purpose of this article is to educate the public about political correctness. On April 4, 2014, the President published an article entitled “We Want More Conservatives” claiming that the American public wants an open and transparent debate about the issue of political correctness.
On April 1, we posted this in response to Mr. Obama’s announcement that he would be opening an investigation into allegations of anti-Semitism made by David Duke, the prominent political Jewish figure who came out on top in his election campaign. It was apparently taken literally, and we had not seen it at the time, or that many of the individuals whose articles were published have publicly condemned the President. However the recent article that many people have seen has been largely uncategorically attacked and that the author does not take seriously the accusations that he is being unfairly blamed for the attacks is part of the problem. It is