Introduction
The article, Infectious Doubt, brings to light people’s trust issues in relation to the coronavirus pandemic. It describes how different Europeans, specifically the north-western and the southern and eastern, vary in terms of how they trust their governments. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the article based on how it is written. Articles are written for various purposes, and the Infectious Doubt uses credible sources, proper presentation, and simple language to bring the reader to make a choice between two sides of an argument.
The goal of this article is to inspire deep and critical thinking. The authors present a case of two extremes – trust and suspicion – but does not intend to show that either one or the other is better. They, however, try to give both an equal chance, making sure to say where one is at fault or when it displays merit. The article has been written in a professional or official tone. This is evident by the use of citations of statistical data and the input of specialists in the related area. For this reason, the authors have proven to be objective in their presentation, while refraining from giving their own opinions about the subject matter. The authors, therefore, are not biased, and the information can be considered credible.
The flow and organization of the article are intentional and has been used to strengthen and highlight the ideas presented. The first paragraph presents the main idea, which is residents of north-western European countries trust their governments and each other more compared to those in southern and eastern Europe. The second paragraph tells the reader why other countries are more trusting compared to others. The four subsequent paragraphs talk about the plight of the less trusting countries such as Romania. The subsequent paragraphs act as a comparison between the two categories of countries, and the last one acts as a conclusion, where the authors end the article openly for the reader to decide what state between trust and suspicion is the best.
The overall impact of the article, which is to inspire critical thinking in the minds of the readers, has been achieved. This is because the article refrains from jargon, and an average reader can understand the general message being portrayed. The authors have basically laid out the facts and tried as much as they can to give an objective representation of both sides of the subject matter. The subtopic of the article also helps reinforce the authors’ objective. Instead of saying “Trust is better than suspicion,” the authors ask which one between the two is better. The use of credible sources of information also makes the readers believe that they have been presented with unbiased information and that any choice they make will be set on a fairground.
The visual elements of the article serve to sum up the whole idea, a move that gives the article more appeal. At the top of the article is a large picture showing two conflicting circumstances – part of the people are indoors while some are outdoors. The placement of the picture on top of the main article serves as an “appetizer,” and thus is effective.
Conclusion
The article has met all the standards of an effective informative paper. It is not offensive, does not lean more towards one side of the argument, nor does it call the other side evil. Its presentation is intentional and effective, and the lack of too much jargon makes it easy to comprehend.