Don't know the context, but a critical analysis of the claims being made here would be good. There are a lot of questions one can ask regarding this artifact.
But I imagine your concern is that the intent is that they're supposed to come up with questions about how muh oppression is so terrible and any questions critical of the claims here would be penalized in some form. Which is certainly a valid concern given the state of education today.
I used to teach. I would totally have students analyze something like this, but of course in the lens of, first, are these stats even accurate? Why does this artifact not state its sources? What are the rhetorical implications of the claims, how they're framed, along with the title above? Are these implications logical or are they trying to guide the reader towards specific conclusions and ignore other related facts? Why?
Maybe even, depending on what's discovered from the questions above, is this organization, through this artifact, contributing to the issue of misinformation today? Why would they want to purposefully misinform people? What are their rhetorical goals?
Rather, I would have done such an assignment years back, but probably now I'd get fired if I approach it that way today, lol. I'm glad I don't teach anymore because I couldn't put up with such shit today.
Yeah you're hired. My biggest issue as I said elsewhere is that the only thing you should learn from this is not to learn from random unsourced claims.
Don't know the context, but a critical analysis of the claims being made here would be good. There are a lot of questions one can ask regarding this artifact.
But I imagine your concern is that the intent is that they're supposed to come up with questions about how muh oppression is so terrible and any questions critical of the claims here would be penalized in some form. Which is certainly a valid concern given the state of education today.
I used to teach. I would totally have students analyze something like this, but of course in the lens of, first, are these stats even accurate? Why does this artifact not state its sources? What are the rhetorical implications of the claims, how they're framed, along with the title above? Are these implications logical or are they trying to guide the reader towards specific conclusions and ignore other related facts? Why?
Maybe even, depending on what's discovered from the questions above, is this organization, through this artifact, contributing to the issue of misinformation today? Why would they want to purposefully misinform people? What are their rhetorical goals?
Rather, I would have done such an assignment years back, but probably now I'd get fired if I approach it that way today, lol. I'm glad I don't teach anymore because I couldn't put up with such shit today.
Yeah you're hired. My biggest issue as I said elsewhere is that the only thing you should learn from this is not to learn from random unsourced claims.