The Impact of Poor Presentation

The article presents a study taking thousands of sets of twins as the participants, and an analysis of every one of their test scores from elementary school to high school. Throughout the article, it is emphasized that the academic performance of the twins was influenced by their genetics, and poor grades were due to the student’s personal stress and anxieties. The article concludes with a mention of a similar study conducted that found a “test”, as well as the mother’s genetics, could contribute to a child’s potential success in general life. Although attempting to appeal towards logic, Interrante fails to provide an adequate explanation of the study through an implicit assumption, a poor presentation of facts, and an overall reliance on a summary resulting in confusion for the audience. At first glance, Interrante seems quite influential in her presentation of the study.

Through further evaluation, however, Interrante assumes that her audience is ignorant and impressionable towards the subject. Following, she is assuming the audience will consider the research credible merely based on vague statements such as, “[The researchers’] analysis found that academic success is very consistent, so kids that do well in elementary school often continue to do well through high school (Interrante 2). ” It is unclear what “consistent” specifically means regarding the children’s grades; does it translate to “straight A’s”, or simply their ability to pass? Following, Interrante uses “do well” to describe the remainder of the children’s academic career and does not elaborate on the exact details of their performance. The article then relies heavily on repetition, with statements in similar format appearing continuously.

Interrante also indicates she has set a low standard for her audience with the absence of rhetorical devices; with such noncomplex terms, the article poorly appeals to logic. Since the topic involves children, emotional and ethical language becomes crucial for in-depth comprehension, which Interrante fails to provide. This results in an insufficient description of the research, and a failure to provide insight for the audience. In addition, Interrante shows little effort to present legitimate facts of the study, making statements such as, “Around two-thirds of individual differences in school achievement are explained by differences in children’s DNA (Interrante 2). ” Again, Interrante does not specifically define what the “differences” are in the “individual” or in the DNA, along with no detailed account of how the researchers came to this conclusion.

Following, Interrante tends to utilize indefinite language in the factual statements, such as “chances” and “may”, indicating a sense of uncertainty. In this way, Interrante does not seem to take the research or the audience seriously; she is writing towards those who are not seeking further knowledge, but simply something controversial to discuss. With the article geared towards parents with children in school, it seems reasonable that Interrante would use comprehensible language. However, she appears to trivialize the intelligence of the audience in limiting herself to superficial statements, which leads to her reliance on a summary. Although the article is quite short, Interrante fails to take advantage of the opportunity to provide a sophisticated presentation of the research, only scratching the surface of what the study may have truly entailed. With the article leaning towards an overview, Interrante does not consider that a genuine analysis is needed to fully comprehend the study.

The reader seems to be left questioning the purpose of this information since there is no list of benefits or detriments that would apply to real life. Regarding the children, Interrante states, “. . . parents and education professionals can focus on identifying children who may need interventions before their grades begin to drop (Interrante 4) …” Through this statement, Interrante is building her purpose of providing a potential solution to aid struggling children in school. Although it is an attempt to shine a positive light on the situation, Interrante fails to describe what “intervention” is needed to prevent poor academic performance, which defeats the claim she is trying to present. The reader then wonders what the best way to approach a struggling child is, and whether more concern is necessary since adults are aware of the study. This lack of a cohesive understanding of the study is also apparent in Interrante’s ineffective conclusion; she mentions a similar study conducted and its results rather than promoting aspects relevant to this specific study. Again, Interrante lacks thorough execution in presenting the issue, resulting in little impact on the audience. Through an overall inadequate presentation of the research, I am not convinced Interrante was completely unbiased. This bias is apparent in her assumption of a credulous audience, which especially hinders the attempt of a strong coherent approach. In this way, Interrante is not making a true effort in presenting all aspects of the study, resulting in a poor exposition of facts. As previously stated, Interrante has the potential to provide refined evidence for her claim but seems to be only concerned with the bare minimum. Along with her use of inferior language, Interrante’s article is simply sub-par, failing to meet the standards of a legitimate research report.