Sorry, I know that my piece isn't overall that great, but could you criticise it for what the piece is worth
The growing competition and the upsurge of popularity of the uber has had an uproar among the taxi employees. In an opinion article "Taxis versus Uber: which is better?" (10/09/15) gives a comparative rational and emulous onlook by Adam Carey and Lucy Battersby. The article compares both services side by side by differentiating price points and availability time, leaving the reader up to interpretation on which service is better.
In contrast the letter to the editor from Melanie provokes her opinion in an irritable and aggravated manner. Bringing up a personal story of her father's long term efforts in the taxi service highlighting the taxi driver's unpredictable fate in this current scenario.
The audience of all three pieces have a particular aim on the taxi consumer, the employee , the taxi business and the government.
Adam Carey's and Lucy Battersby's article opens with the title "Taxis versus Uber: which is better?" Suggests that this would be an analogy between the Taxi and Uber service, giving the the reader the assertion that the article would take focus on which service is better and which one is better recommended. The article opens with words as "Simmering anger" and "Boiled over" to emotionally express the taxi services' feeling of aggravation from the opposing Uber service. These use of such emotional words could catch the reader's attention. Why are they angry? Why has Uber boiled over? These compelling use of words develop into phrases such as "Competition biting at their heels", "It is low hanging fruit for disruption" are the use of cliche that are easily recognisable to the readers, without notice the readers could simplify the taxi industry as disruptable to the ongoing progress other competitors in the market.
The comment by Melanie starts off being personal "My father has been a taxi driver for over 30 years" going on by saying that with the rise of uber, her father had a high fee to pay. As the readers go on they gain a certain empathetic feeling, one that targets the emotional and hip pocket reader. If they were in this situation they would have a hard time, one that involves stress and pressure. Adam Carey and lucy Battersby similarly understand the driver's overall situation of their expense of owning a license. Their use of stats present a fee that takes up “50 percent of fares”. Melanie then goes on to ask a question “What about those who still ave to make a living of their taxi wages?” asking the reader to consider the employees who are in debt in this taxi matter pleading for their understanding and sympathy. Adam and Lucy also have a similar understanding on the matter by inclining that most owners put all their money into paying the and “ not car maintenance and driver training.” such lexical choice invigerates an idea on why the taxi service is in such poor stalement. Giving the audience some appeal to logic and reason for it understands the other side of the argument. The letter to the editor concludes by stating “who was here first” reffering to the taxi drivers in general appealing to their self interest giving the employees some pride. Ironically though both Adam and Lucy disclaim such argument with their use of statistics. For the taxi is avaible in “9.9 minutes” while Uber overwhelmingly surpasses by about “3.3 minutes”. Developing the analogy that uber is not only better by price, but also from availability.
The overall statement by adam and Lucy’s “Taxi versus Uber: which is better” contends that Uber is by the better brand over the taxi bussiness as it provides good pay and cost and availability. Melanie however tries to downplay the claim by painting the taxi man as the victim.
Home
Help
Search
Login
