In the article, An Easier Way to Fight Bullying?

, the author, Anna North deals with

the issue of the role of bystanders in fighting bully. She argues that bystanders might be
more willing to step in to help if they are able to do so without standing up to the bully
directly. His strong stance towards such inclination is shown through words such as may be
helpful, experimental, prefer and behaviour which reflect his neutral and objective
language. The tone of impartial and concern have been used to convince students, social
network users and those engaged in society development to acknowledge that bystanders
will be more likely to help if they got the opportunities to intervene during the bully situation
indirectly.

In arguing this issue the author has included various supports to strengthen her
claim. Her article which has almost a combination of ninety percent facts and ten percent of
opinion depicts her stand of bystanders more likely to have the opportunities to help bully
victims indirectly in those bully situations. Her references are based on three testaments:
The experimental data from various tests that have been conducted by Kelly P. Dillon of
Ohio State University, a testimony about peoples particular behaviour on social networks
from Dr. Mihaela van der Schaar of U.C.L.A. who has studied reputation on social networks,
and the study about bullying among students by Dr. Jaana Juvonen, a psychology professor
from U.C.L.A. all indicate the relevance and consistency of her support and hence her
argument.

This article is mainly evidence-based due to the lack of showing or stating the
authors outlook on the issue. However, the evidences given are part of her almost 90
percent support which are based on objective references and that leaves the personal
judgement to be slightly over 10 percent. Furthermore, the objective supports are considered
convincing as they are made up of statistic, recommendation, expert testimony and research
finding, nonetheless the percentages inevitably confirm that her article is to some extent
more objective rather than subjective. Plus, the author appears to be both inductive and
deductive in her reasoning, as she provides all the specific support as to what the
bystanders would do and attempts to generalize, and do the other way around for another
point in the article.
 Moreover, it is noted that the author only wishes to inform the targeted audiences and
readers on how and what bystanders or people will do when there is a bully situation
happening near them based on the references included. For every issue, consideration
should be given to both sides of the divide. In her article the author focuses on the role and
the behaviour of the bystanders during a bully situation and all her support whether
professional factually or her own personal observation do touch on both bystanders will do
something, A total of 68 percent, however, intervened indirectly, by giving the monitor or the
chat program itself a bad evaluation and do nothing, the friend may not do anything right
then and there, when there is actually a bully situation happening near them. Such mention
allows her to contradict her points inside the article and consequently strengthens her stand
by showing fairness on the issue. As a result, her article is complete.

Finally,