Informative article: An analysis
(Clinician from Harvard will fill Pitt neurosurgery vacancy)
Mr. Fabregas published the information that Dr. Robert M Friedlander took the job vacated by Dr. Amin kassam, a high profile surgeon who abruptly left Pittsburgh medical center last year. In this case Mr. Fabregas make an assumption of an event using the logical thinking as a slippery slope when he says “The University of Pittsburgh has hired a leading brain surgeon from Harvard”. As you can perceive the title of this article has a classism view, when he put Harvard the institution as the support of the event that is occurring in the school. In this article he uses pathos, giving vivid descriptions, narrative of emotional events and connotative meanings to inform and get the attention of the audience.
He says that kassam abruptly left but he also put a contradiction in this informative article when he says that “Officials never said why Kassam left”, he never give a real argument to support his point using Non sequitur logic which does not follow what he is establishing base on assuming a certain situation. He never says where he was and why did he left, he never go deep finding that specific information to the audience.
At the time of giving information to a diverse audience he says that “Friedlander is an accomplished clinician and researcher who said his goal is to understand the science behind the death of brain cell”. When he highlights the point base on the abilities and goals of Mr. Friedlander the only thing he was doing was ignoring the question. He established irrelevant points that distract the audience from the real issue.
“My desire is to understand how the brain becomes injured, and how to prevent it from becoming injured and then how to treat it,” said Friedlander who will begin seeing patients, in this occasion he uses trivial objections, which only divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed, I try to make this point because as you can see the topic is irrelevant to this situation, Mr. fabregas is just making complements to the knowledge of the new doctor that is substituting the other like when he says that, “ Friedlander is an accomplished clinician and researcher,” he never give a strong point at the time of saying why the other doctor left the hospital and he didn’t even say the good things he did to contribute to the university of Pittsburgh.
“Friedlander has authored 59 peer reviewed reports in leading medical journals. He received his medical degree from Harvard medical school, where he completed a residency in neurological surgery.” In this brief explanation he is using circular reasoning that is the proposition to be assumed explicitly. He says that “At Harvard he was vice chairman of neurosurgery and associate director of cerebrovascular surgery, where his practice involved surgery for complex brain tumors.”
All this positives things about doctor Friedlander are awesome and it’s very good to know someone achievements, what I don’t understand is the points he made and assumptions of the other doctor who left the university.
Ironically at the end of the article he says that “kassam, whom UPMC featured in its television commercials, is developing a neuroscience institute at St. John’s health center in California.” What is the purpose of informing this to the audience at the end of the article when at the beginning he contradicted himself saying that officials never said why Kassam left the institution?
In this article he uses tropes like apostrophe that is addressing someone or some personified abstraction that is not physically present, because it was base in an event and his point of view. He was redundant most of the time saying the achievements of doctor Friedlander and saying the importance of Harvard University.
The text structure was brief when he inform the readers, the majority of the time you can easily differ from him, when he don’t support his point and something that you can completely differ with him was the difference between the title and the paragraph that totally was irrelevant from the point that he was making at the beginning of the piece. Like when he says that the clinician from Harvard will fill Pittsburgh vacancy, saying that it’s the best option and his achievements but at the same time ignoring Dr. Kassam achievements to the university of Pittsburgh.
Source of information: Pittsburgh tribune review (PA), published details on June 15, 2010
(Clinician from Harvard will fill Pitt neurosurgery vacancy)
Mr. Fabregas published the information that Dr. Robert M Friedlander took the job vacated by Dr. Amin kassam, a high profile surgeon who abruptly left Pittsburgh medical center last year. In this case Mr. Fabregas make an assumption of an event using the logical thinking as a slippery slope when he says “The University of Pittsburgh has hired a leading brain surgeon from Harvard”. As you can perceive the title of this article has a classism view, when he put Harvard the institution as the support of the event that is occurring in the school. In this article he uses pathos, giving vivid descriptions, narrative of emotional events and connotative meanings to inform and get the attention of the audience.
He says that kassam abruptly left but he also put a contradiction in this informative article when he says that “Officials never said why Kassam left”, he never give a real argument to support his point using Non sequitur logic which does not follow what he is establishing base on assuming a certain situation. He never says where he was and why did he left, he never go deep finding that specific information to the audience.
At the time of giving information to a diverse audience he says that “Friedlander is an accomplished clinician and researcher who said his goal is to understand the science behind the death of brain cell”. When he highlights the point base on the abilities and goals of Mr. Friedlander the only thing he was doing was ignoring the question. He established irrelevant points that distract the audience from the real issue.
“My desire is to understand how the brain becomes injured, and how to prevent it from becoming injured and then how to treat it,” said Friedlander who will begin seeing patients, in this occasion he uses trivial objections, which only divert the attention away from the topic that is being discussed, I try to make this point because as you can see the topic is irrelevant to this situation, Mr. fabregas is just making complements to the knowledge of the new doctor that is substituting the other like when he says that, “ Friedlander is an accomplished clinician and researcher,” he never give a strong point at the time of saying why the other doctor left the hospital and he didn’t even say the good things he did to contribute to the university of Pittsburgh.
“Friedlander has authored 59 peer reviewed reports in leading medical journals. He received his medical degree from Harvard medical school, where he completed a residency in neurological surgery.” In this brief explanation he is using circular reasoning that is the proposition to be assumed explicitly. He says that “At Harvard he was vice chairman of neurosurgery and associate director of cerebrovascular surgery, where his practice involved surgery for complex brain tumors.”
All this positives things about doctor Friedlander are awesome and it’s very good to know someone achievements, what I don’t understand is the points he made and assumptions of the other doctor who left the university.
Ironically at the end of the article he says that “kassam, whom UPMC featured in its television commercials, is developing a neuroscience institute at St. John’s health center in California.” What is the purpose of informing this to the audience at the end of the article when at the beginning he contradicted himself saying that officials never said why Kassam left the institution?
In this article he uses tropes like apostrophe that is addressing someone or some personified abstraction that is not physically present, because it was base in an event and his point of view. He was redundant most of the time saying the achievements of doctor Friedlander and saying the importance of Harvard University.
The text structure was brief when he inform the readers, the majority of the time you can easily differ from him, when he don’t support his point and something that you can completely differ with him was the difference between the title and the paragraph that totally was irrelevant from the point that he was making at the beginning of the piece. Like when he says that the clinician from Harvard will fill Pittsburgh vacancy, saying that it’s the best option and his achievements but at the same time ignoring Dr. Kassam achievements to the university of Pittsburgh.
Source of information: Pittsburgh tribune review (PA), published details on June 15, 2010