Which of the followings is NOT characteristic of a good letter to the editor?
a. Being rational
b. being lenghty
c. using good taste
d. being fair
Is B correct im not sure of this one any other opinions please
I agree with B. If such letters are too long, the people at the publication will edit them ... and you may not like how the letter is edited!
what about being rational?
rational = reasonable
Is a good letter filled with UNREASONABLE ideas??
To determine which of the options is NOT characteristic of a good letter to the editor, let's review each option:
a. Being rational: A good letter to the editor should present logical arguments and reasoning, so being rational is typically characteristic of a good letter.
b. Being lengthy: While it is common for letters to the editor to be shorter in length, this does not necessarily make them bad. In fact, concise and well-written letters are often preferred as they allow for clear and focused communication. However, it is important to note that the specific guidelines for letter length may vary by publication.
c. Using good taste: A good letter to the editor should demonstrate respect, courtesy, and professionalism in its tone and language. Using good taste is generally characteristic of a well-written letter.
d. Being fair: A good letter to the editor should be fair and objective, presenting different perspectives without bias or personal attacks. Being fair is an important characteristic of an effective letter.
Based on the above analysis, the option that is NOT characteristic of a good letter to the editor is option b, being lengthy. However, it's always a good idea to consider multiple perspectives, so if you have any differing opinions or additional insights, please feel free to share them.