For the first article, the author argued that plastic toys influence kids in a way that makes them want to be more like the toy in appearance. For the second article, it shows that these toys don't influence kids and that they do it themselves on their own way.
The tone used in both articles suggests that the first one is for a more specific audience, in this case educated adults and professors. This is found in the format of the paper because it is setup in a way that emphasizes the facts and details more. The second article is for a less serious audience. This is shown in the length and seriousness of the article.
While the first article made more sense to me, the second one had a less serious tone that made me question its reasoning. I didn't have any experience with plastic dolls and such. Therefore, the articles affected me in a minor way.
1 comment:
Did you really not have a favorite toy at all? I kinda find that hard to believe.
About the post:
When you read the article, did you notice the differece between the toys for the 70's and 90's? How is the view of body change over the years?
Post a Comment