Friday, March 24, 2017

A Good Paper Illustrating the Difference Between Summary and Analysis


Eng-101
March 6,2017
Analyzing a journalist.
Today, the oil industry has been facing the deepest downturn since the 1990s because of the drastic oil price drops which have resulted in the downfall of the oil refinery industries with reported bankruptcy, and minimized employment opportunity. Why and how did the oil price drop? What will be the effect on the public and the economy? What is going on behind the scenes? This context inspires a level curiosity with a bold question mark. Therefore, through the column of The New York Times, in his article “Oil Prices: What’s Behind the Volatility? Simple Economics” published on December 12, 2016, Clifford Krauss addresses the above questions and explains the cause and effects of the decrease in the oil prices, some conspiracies, and future speculation related to it. Krauss has tactically drafted his article in the simplest manner possible to enlighten the public who are concerned about the oil market. Initially, the article covers a brief context and background about oil price drop. Further, the article addresses the general questions fragmented into multiple sections followed by a brief explanation which seems identical to the frequently asked questions tab found on websites of the service-based organization. Krauss has supported his argument by various statistical data, theories of microeconomics, and various annual reports. Krauss has mainly focused on cause and effects, mutual actions by committee[O1] , conspiracy theories, and prediction of economists. [NOTE THE EXCELLENT SUMMARY HERE]Therefore, Krauss has successfully explained the reason behind the volatility in the oil market with a simple language of economics optimizing its comprehensibility to the maximum. However, the article is vulnerable to criticism due to lack of complete evidence, and information about third factors that influence real world markets. [O2] [CLEARLY STATED THESIS]
Per the source, Clifford Krauss is a national energy correspondent of The New York Times based in Houston. He was previously the bureau chief of The Time’s Buenos Aires and Toronto bureaus, and has reported from the Middle East and North Africa. Based on qualification, experience, and current standing, Krauss seems to be a profound and credible journalist. Further, his article on oil price drop reflects his handful of experience, and mighty enthusiasm as a media identity. Today, politics and media represent a chess game where politics is a king checked by media as a mighty knight. Therefore, politics is influenced by media however sometimes media gets corrupt with the power and money from politics. But, journalists like Clifford Krauss holds an objective position within this sphere of influence from politics and outside sources. He mentions, “some oil executives are quietly noting that the Saudis want to hurt Iran, and so does the United States-motivation enough for the two oil-producing nations to force down prices. Dropping prices in the 1980s did help bring down the Soviet Union, after all[O3] ”. [GOOD USE OF EVIDENCE FROM THE SOURCE]] Krauss has fearlessly dragged the conspiracies related to poor diplomacy, and dirty politics which exists between oil producers without fearing the lords from oil industries. In a nutshell, Krauss maintains his credibility by being grounded on the norms and values of journalism.
In his article, Krauss’ approach to explain and relate the basic microeconomics theory with the current oil price drop is in my opinion, a masterpiece. Krauss has used a very simple and logical language which gives a clear understanding of the oil price drop to his audience who may have no prior knowledge of economics. In other words, Krauss has adopted an educational approach to enlighten his audience with the basic concepts of economics referring to an effective example of current oil price drop. The logical relations between supply, demand, and the price [O4] [O5] [NOTE THAT THE AUTHOR HAS PROVIDED ANALYSIS HERE. IN THIS PARAGRAPH, HE HAS NOT TOLD THE READER WHAT THE AUTHOR SAID BUT RATHER HOW THE AUTHOR SAID ITdetermined is exposed in detail. Krauss mentions, “Production in Venezuela, a portrait of political instability, is falling fast. Rebel attacks in Nigeria have also curtailed supplies in that region, and the continuing fighting in Libya has stymied efforts to get that country’s oil industry back on its feet.” [MORE EVIDENCE FROM THE ARTICLE]The use of such specific examples from the oil-producing nations and their current position in the oil market contributes to this article’s concrete and credible nature. Further, it aids to boost the general knowledge of its audience. Hence, the article is furnished with supporting evidence, graphical representations, and relative examples; however, the evidence is not equally distributed to every argument.
In conclusion, I believe that Krauss makes a compelling argument for media credibility in the face of economic corruption. Further, this article does an excellent job of addressing this information for individuals who may be familiar with oil price drop and unfamiliar with microeconomics principles. However, this article lacks complete information, and evidence. Therefore, those who are familiar with this topic will find this article leaves a lot to be desired.


 [O1]Summary
 [O2]Clearly stated thesis
 [O3]Note the author's use of evidence drawn directly from the source.
 [O4]
 [O5]Note the use of analysis. The author is not telling us what the author says, which would be summary. He is telling us how the author made his points. This is analysis. In fact, this entire paragraph is very good analysis.
 [O6]More Excellent Analysis
 [O7]More excellent analysis. However, a citation of a knowledgeable source would have improved the analysis. 

No comments:

Post a Comment