How Do the Differences in the Ways the Two Articles Are Written Make one More Effective Than the Other?

How do the differences in the ways the two articles are written make one more effective than the other?

Recently, two articles were published that reviewed the book "Empty Pleasures" by Carolyn De la Pena. The first article was reviewed by Susan Wittig Albert and published by the University of North Carolina Press. The second article was reviewed by Ben Steelmen and published by Chapel Hill of University of North Carolina Press. Albert's article is more effective than the Steelman's article because it does a better job of reaching its target audience. The target audience of the Albert's article is young women in the America, as evidenced by the subtitle of the publisher, which reads: "by, for and about women". This phrase tells the readers that article is for women, or people who are interested in reading about American female culture. Also, on the book's cover is a portrayal of a lady. Moreover, the subject is "food/cooking/kitchen". All of those are the typical interest of women.

Through the article, she mentions a lot of words such as "slim", "sexy", "diet", etc... Those words reveal that the article is for people who care about their appearance; specifically young women. Moreover, she aimed to young women in America through the use of some words such as "American consumers", etc, compared to the article by Steelman, which uses a lot of health terms such as "aspartame", "ulcer", "anecdotal", etc...That means people must have knowledge about heath in order to effectively relate to its content, so the article is for people who are knowledgeable about health.

Albert uses first-person narrative as "I", "I've" and she also poses several rhetorical questions in the article. These writing devices the article easy to read and the content more relatable for the reader. These writing devices also make the article more casual and informal, compared to the article by Steelman, which uses the words "aspartame", "anecdotal", "skeptical", etc...Those words are not related to the readers and hard to understand. For everyone, they always use the common words for speaking or writing such as "headache", "stomach problem" instead of using the medical term like "cephalgia", "ulcer". Only the people in health field can understand those words or if people want to know what the words mean, they need to look it up in the dictionary. So it would spend times by doing that. Also those kinds of word are not using a lot in everyday, it only uses in the specific area. Moreover, those kinds of words are hard to pronounce and remember. Therefore, it makes the reader who has no medical knowledge hardly able to understand the article.

Ben uses third-person narration and focuses on the fact in the article. These writing devices the article hard

...