In the article that we read on page 37, the author was trying to explain how everyday life can be stressful. As far as meeting his goal, I think that he could have done a much better job. They did give a few examples of everyday annoyances, but not of how they can cause you stress. The author also jumped around a lot. Instead of sticking with one subject at a time they went back and forth which became very annoying in its self. Maybe if the author would have made the article flow a little better and used more examples then they might have met their goal.

Question

In the article that we read on page 37, the author was trying to explain how everyday life can be stressful. As far as meeting his goal, I think that he could have done a much better job. They did give a few examples of everyday annoyances, but not of how they can cause you stress. The author also jumped around a lot. Instead of sticking with one subject at a time they went back and forth which became very annoying in its self. Maybe if the author would have made the article flow a little better and used more examples then they might have met their goal.

Answer 1

We read on page 37? We are not affiliated with Axia, nor wish to be.

Now I assume you want some help with your analysis.

First, you seem to jump from person (he, they, author, they, author, they, their). Exactly who are you critiquing?

Secondly, if this is an opinion paragraph, as you have written, it in fact is your opinion. If it is supposed to be an analysis, you did not give very many facts (or examples) for your argument.

Answer 2

Advertising, public

Answer 3

To determine how the author could have better explained how everyday life can be stressful, we can analyze the structure and content of the article. Let's break it down step by step:

1. Lack of examples: According to the given feedback, the author didn't provide enough examples to demonstrate how everyday annoyances can lead to stress. Stress is a subjective experience and can vary for different individuals. To clarify this concept, the author could have incorporated specific instances or anecdotes of common everyday situations that may cause stress, such as dealing with heavy traffic, juggling multiple responsibilities, or struggling to meet deadlines.

2. Inconsistent focus: The author tends to jump between different subjects instead of maintaining a clear and coherent flow. This lack of structure can make it difficult for readers to follow the narrative and grasp the intended message. To improve this, the author should have organized the article into distinct sections or paragraphs, each addressing a specific aspect of everyday life that can contribute to stress. By keeping a consistent focus within each section, the author could establish a stronger connection between the examples and the stress they generate.

3. Better flow: The feedback suggests that the article lacked a smooth transition between ideas. To address this, the author could have used transitional phrases or words to connect one point to another. Additionally, structuring the content using logical progression and cohesive paragraphs would have helped the article flow more naturally and keep readers engaged.

4. More examples: The feedback also suggests that the author could have used more examples to support their points. Incorporating diverse scenarios that readers can relate to would have made the article more relatable and effective in conveying the message. By expanding on the examples and providing more context, the author could have helped readers understand the specific stressors associated with everyday life.

Overall, by incorporating more relevant examples, maintaining a consistent focus, improving the flow, and organizing the content effectively, the author could have enhanced the understanding and impact of their article on how everyday life can be stressful.