New York Times
May 1, 2008
Author Unknown
This article talks about how Senator Clinton and John McCain want to cut off taxes on gasoline between Memorial Day and Labor Day. However, this would only cost the governments nine billion dollars and add to demand of gasoline, only increasing effects of global warming. The author argues that drivers would only face bigger problems from gas prices. It goes on to point out that candidates should face the reality that gas prices will remain high for time to come and that a solution should be put in act to reduce carbon emission, rather than just promising it. The author seems biased but you cannot tell what side he or she might really be on. There are no big words used to confuse the reader and the article flows well, pointing out the issue very clearly. It is obvious the opinion of the author and he/she succeeds in convincing you to agree with their opinion.
This is a huge issue right now. It is good the author did not use large words and really connected with the audience. The author also seems well versed with the issue.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with pretty much everything this writer stated. Standard economic principles dictate that none of these occurrences, if not the exact opposite, would take place. Without writing my own article with logic and economics to counter this one, it is simply much easier to say that the author should have used some sort evidence for his or her claims. Simply saying that "gas prices would be a bigger problem" or "global warming would get worse" are broad, blanketed statements that require much evidence for convincing.
ReplyDeleteThis is a big issue today on wheter or not to stop taxing gas during the summer. The author seems knowledgable when they state the about of money the government would loose. From my point he seems against stopping taxing because they just point out the negative effect it would have.
ReplyDelete