TOW #15: Smug Couples Patronize Singles to Feel Better About Themselves by: Samantha Joel

With Semi-formal coming up here at Wiss, everyone is vying for a date. For many singles, it may be a very depressing time, with all the couples that have their dates already lined up. But no need for the Wiss singles to worry any longer, Samantha Joel, a student at the University of Toronto has dating figured out. In her article, Joel aims to explain why people in a monogamous relationship tend to look down on those who are single. Although the concept is interesting, Joel struggles to achieve her purpose to educate about this phenomenon due to her lacking syntax and confusing order.
       As Joel attempts to explain this interesting topic, her syntax hinders how effective her message is because it is unacademic and basic. Joel uses very basic terminology to explain the premise of the study. As she gives background, she says, "For single people, they measured how difficult single participants thought it would be to find a romantic partner. For romantically attached people, they measured how difficult they thought it would be to leave their current relationships". Although this does explain the study very simply, these two sentences are identical in structure, thus making her argument seem less academic.
     On a less microscopic level, Joel detracts from her argument because of her confusing order, which does not lead the reader clearly through to a conclusion. Joel begins her article by defining what this phenomenon is, which is clear enough. However, as Joel begins to explain about the actual study, she gets confusing. She explains different parts of the study, but fails in some places to identify what these findings mean, which is essential to reader comprehension. Finally, in her conclusion, Joel basically just re-states the point that "people look down on people with opposing relationship statuses as a way to feel better about their own," without driving home the fact that the study she was reporting on proved that. 
   Therefore, although this could have been an extremely interesting an article, the way that Joel wrote the article did not do the subject a justice.

(Source)