The given analysis will primarily focus on the two articles, which are “Why I Quit Street Racing, and Why Some People Won’t” by Jack Baruth and “Do Motorcycles Really Make You Stronger AND Smarter?” by BSFC. The core emphasis of the assessment will be mainly put on propaganda techniques and literary elements. The preferred article is the one written by Baruth since it stays focused on key relevant literary elements, such as insider information and motives, and provides effective propaganda measures in the form of root causes and potential solutions. BSFC’s article is the least preferred one due to its poor utilization of evidence and lack of integral literary elements of factoring on a multitude of perspectives.
Jack Baruth’s article is a highly impactful and important piece of writing, which addresses a dangerous hobby or activity of street racing. The first reason why the given article can be considered superior to the other is the fact that it utilizes relevant literary elements, such as theme and evidence. It is stated: “every year, thousands of street racers realize that the risk to themselves and innocent bystanders like the four people killed in the Raleigh area this week exceeds the rewards of being the first car across some hastily-painted line a quarter-mile away” (Baruth par. 6).
In other words, the use of evidence is properly connected to the main theme of the article, which attempts to explore and explain the reasons why individuals choose to engage in such a dangerous activity. The writer utilizes an effective mix of personal experiences alongside prompt evidence for highlighting the dangers of street racing. Although the author mainly uses the first-person perspective, the style fits the theme due to him being a person with expertise in these endeavors.
The second is manifested in the notion of propaganda techniques, where the author provides an effective and valid explanation for the major motives of the racers and offers some form of solution to the issue. The author writes: “you can’t discourage young street racers who are addicted to that adrenaline rush without offering them something just as good in return” (Baruth par. 8). In other words, the narrative does not simply focus on Baruth’s personal experience and knowledge but also derives a solution. The author educates readers on the fact that there are explicit reasons why people choose to street race despite its risks and dangers.
He also reveals how legal street racing can be a valid and effective solution to the problem (Baruth par. 8). In other words, the writer assesses the topic from different perspectives or points of view, which makes the article comprehensive and complete.
In the case of the BSFC’s article, the first reason why it is the least preferred one is rooted in the fact that it poorly utilizes evidence by not using them to fit the narrative. A reader can effortlessly spot biases present in the writing because the utilization of literary elements is done in a one-dimensional manner. A biased approach becomes evident from the very beginning of the article, where the author states: “when you find yourself in the inevitable midst of a loved one’s fear for your safety, try to share the positive aspects of riding, like the research-backed health benefits it brings you” (BSFC par. 2).
The article explicitly establishes how its narrative literary elements are biased towards the positives of the activity without any form of discussion of the evident potential dangers. The author does use supporting evidence, but they are selective “cherry-picked” to fit the theme, which makes the piece less credible compared to the first article. In addition, the provided quote contains a clear grammatical error, where the author uses the word “you safety” instead of “your safety.”
The second reason is the lack of differential perspectives, which makes the reading non-comprehensive. Unlike the first article, the author does not assess the risks associated with the use of motorcycles nor does not illuminate the statement of the activity being “low-impact” (BSFC par. 2). The evidence used by the writer can support the initial statement of motorcycles being healthy and a form of aerobic activity, but there are no supporting points of it being low-impact. One can see how such a statement can be interpreted as misinformation or invalid since the dangers of motorcycles are real and highly impactful to a degree where the activity can become a fatal one.
In conclusion, the comparative analysis was primarily focused on the articles by Jack Baruth and BSFC. The former author’s piece is a preferred one due to the extensive use of effective literary elements, such as the focus on the theme and use of relevant evidence, and the provision of useful propaganda elements, such as multifaceted perspectives. The article by BSFC is the least preferred one due to its extensive use of biased data and lack of differential points of view on the subject. The second article is highly one-dimensional, contains grammatical errors, and lacks credibility.
Works Cited
Baruth, Jack. “Why I Quit Street Racing and Why Some People Won’t.” Roadandtrack. 2015. Web.
BSFC. “Do Motorcycles Really Make You Stronger AND Smarter?” Theridingcentre. 2015. Web.