This article from the New York Times highlights the opium epidemic in the United States, arguing that opium is the cause of the increasing number of children in foster care. The article’s first sentence contains statistics, and although it does highlight a very sad personal story in the third sentence, the lead isn’t very strong. The second paragraph is the nut graph, but contains way too much information and may be hard to follow. I did, however, think the body of the article did a good job at addressing political and governmental funding issues around the opium epidemic. The ending lacks anything of interest and ends does not leave the reader wanting to know more. I did like that the article addressed the opium “epidemic,” as some people only consider infectious diseases to be epidemics.
What would be a good ending, in order to make people interested or passionate about this topic? What are your thoughts on biases of this article? Was there little or a lot? Is there anything you would change about it?