It is important to note that sources and their credibility plays an essential role in ensuring that the writing is evidential and persuasive because the lack of high-quality and reliable sources is indicative of the questionability of the presented statements. The New Yorker article is not as credible as it could be due to its excessive use of secondary and even tertiary sources, which are primarily linked to the publisher itself. Therefore, the use of sources by the author can be considered inadequate.
The first main point is centered around the fact that the selected article uses sources, the majority of which are other The New Yorker articles. The author excessively relies on the information provided by the publisher, which undermines the writing’s credibility since it is preferred to utilize the primary sources or highly credible secondary ones when they are available and accessible for use within the text. Among many examples is the statement, which states that “in the audience was Herman Cain, the former C.E.O. of Godfather’s Pizza and an erstwhile Presidential candidate, who had become one of Trump’s most prominent Black supporters” (Wright, 2020). The source is directed towards another The New Yorker article, which argues that the given individual was a supporter of Trump, and the source could have used a more direct alternative, such as an interview or social media posting.
The second main point revolves around the fact that few sources, which are not from the publisher, are not presented in an accurate manner. For example, the author writes that “a Chinese study reported on an infected traveler who took two long bus rides,” which he uses to support the usefulness of masks (Wright, 2020). However, the study itself does not address the usefulness or uselessness of masks but rather focuses on the conclusion that there could be an airborne spread. One should be aware that the given point is not about whether or not masks are effective but rather about the fact that the author of the article presents the conclusions of a study in an inaccurate manner.
The third main point focuses on how the author occasionally does not include sources where needed. For example, the author writes that “on April 3rd, the C.D.C. finally proclaimed that masks were vital weapons” (Wright, 2020). It is important to note that such specific information needs to be sourced or referenced because it is one of the key points of the segment. In other words, the article does not make a sound choice in regards to selecting and including sources in the story, which makes some of the critical statements unsubstantiated or unsupported. Therefore, it is of paramount importance for the author to be able to use evidence in order to provide valid and persuasive points.
In conclusion, one should be aware of the fact that the selected article has poor use of sources because the author relies heavily and excessively on other The New Yorker articles, which are secondary and tertiary sources. In addition, the writing does not properly present the conclusions or findings of the referenced sources, where only small pieces of information are used to support the author’s points, which deems the arguments highly inaccurate. The author also fails to incorporate key sources in places where they are needed the most, such as specific points with dates and organization.
Reference
Wright, L. (2020). The plague year. The New Yorker. Web.