https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/us-inequality-poor-people-bad-choices-wealthy-bias
Where is the article from? How do you know it is a reliable source? Does it have a known political bias?
The article is from a website called The Guardian. It is not a very popular website. They have trending topics on American opinions. I can tell that this source is reliable because of the evidence given throughout the article. It has a known political bias also.
Who wrote the article? Does the author have any potential biases/conflict of interests (ETHOS)? Who is the target audience? How can you tell?
A woman wrote this article and her bias is clear throughout the article because of her experiences she makes it clear of her statement in the argument. The target audience is poor, I can tell because of how she keeps referring back to herself.
How does the headline grab our attention? Does it show any attempt to politicize the news item or appeal to a particular demographic? Is it accurate or misleading (in relation to the content?)
The headline grabs my attention because it is a very common question that is hard to get answered. I feel like it appeals to the middle class, to the people who have the stability to be poor or be in the higher class. It is very accurate though.
Are there any pictures or graphics at the beginning of the article to preview the argument and/or give the argument a particular context
There is one image connected to the article and the description under it goes great with the article but the image is a little hard to understand.
Analyze the argument. What is the main idea? Break down the argument into steps – what are the sub-arguments?
Evaluate the argument. Is it logical (LOGOS)? Does it appeal to emotion (PATHOS)? What strategies does it use to persuade the reader? What examples does it give? Are there any logical fallacies?
Evaluate the content and the sources. Does the article link to other relevant sources? Does it list sources at the end of the article? Is it clear if the article is factual or opinion-based? How far can you get when you try to check the sources/background of the argument?