Blog stage six

          As I was reading my classmates blog,I found the issue of the editorial interesting. Her intended audiences are the whole American population. The author has begun her editorial with the economic health of America in 2009. She argues that Government did wrong by granting a loan to General Motor. She says that giving money to the Company General Motor was not required rather, it could be used for creating jobs, social security or Medicare. She has also shown that she is not satisfied with Government’s act of giving money to the Company General Motors because she says that about four decades later, Government is giving tax money to the company General Motor that took the job of lots of people in the past.
        As a reader, I found this editorial a bit unclear because of incomplete information and most of her ideas are just based on her own mind, as I could not see any supporting facts and statistics. I did not find content of the editorial as gripping as the topic. Her arguments were not valid and credible, as it could be if she had stated some of the facts and statistics. In fact, I do not agree with her belief that Government made the wrong decision by giving money to the Company General Motors because we all know that the Company General Motor  was escalating downward towards its failure and Government did an admirable job by giving credit to keep the company. In addition to that government loan helped to keep the load of jobs. Recently Company General Motor has also paid off eight billion to taxpayers ahead of schedule. I truly appreciate the author’s opinion about government investing that money for social security, Medicare and welfare, but in that instance, it was Government’s responsibility to protect that the company from going bankruptcy. I think she could have assembled a bit more evidence and logics to supports her ideas. Her allegation was not totally wrong, but I would say it was a poor claim. I think that the writer could have researched it a bit more and included more detail on it because as a reader, I could not figure out what was the main theme of the editorial. In addition, author could have used more issue related ideas rather than other ideas that were not strongly related to the topic. Also, author could have restated her thesis in conclusion so that it would be clearer what the main thought that she was arguing for was.
      In conclusion, I would want to say that her arguments and claim were not strong enough. However, the author has tried to make it intelligible and easy.I would suggest that she could have included more detail about what she was arguing for and the supporting facts. The author was not successful to get the clear picture to the intended audience of what she was arguing for in her editorial. Also, her arguments were not that strong as it could be if she had taken support of relevant information and researched it little bit.