Critical Evaluation of “Textual evidence regarding the article; ‘Threat of major Taal

eruption now low – Phivolcs’” by Dominique Talosig and James Villamiel

By: Joseph

In the academic essay, Textual evidence regarding the article; “Threat of major Taal eruption now

low – Phivolcs”, Dominique Talosig and James Villamiel Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics (STEM) Senior High School (SHS) students from Far Eastern University (FEU), made an

analysis on how textual devices were portrayed and used in the article. The article discusses the major

catastrophe that happened at the start of this year, 2020, where the Taal volcano had erupted and ruined

the lives of many people. It wanted to inform people about the condition of the said volcano and its

effects to the lives of people living near it, whether it’s safe or not to go back to their homes. Based from

the analysis, according to the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), the

possibility of another major explosion of the Taal volcano had decreased but it is still there, that’s why

they still urged the strict implementation of the 7-kilometer danger zone. They concluded that with the

help of the government and the people, the Batanguenos will soon rise and overcome these challenges.

The aim of a certain article determines the way it should be written. Upon reading the essay of

Talosig and Villamiel, it was clear that it discusses an article related to the threat of Taal Volcano

becoming low. The message of the article was clear and on point, they did not use highfalutin words or

jargons that may confuse the readers. By merely reading the article, you can already determine the

thought that this article wants to deliver. In addition, there were minimal faults in their technique in

expressing their ideas. However, the essay was made to criticize the use of textual evidences and is

expected to focus more on analysis of how textual evidences were portrayed.

 An essay criticizing the textual evidences of a certain article needs to be focused on the analysis

of how the article stated claims or supporting evidences on the main idea, and not just merely state the

summary or narration of the article. That was how the first two paragraphs of the essay of Talosig et al.,

started. Although the authors used the narration to support their claims; it should focus more on the

analysis of the textual evidences on the examined article. Their first two paragraphs affected the real goal

of their essay — to criticize the use of textual evidences in the article because it seemed like a narration of

the article rather than a critique paper. The authors should have evaluated their ideas by critically

assessing information or opinions on the article and by judging their legitimacy. Because of this, the

written work does not effectively express its objective by just merely reading the text, because the

narration gives confusion as to what the objective of the essay really is; a narration or an analysis?

Moreover, the topic sentence of the authors did not set up the main idea, and the rest of the

sentences did not provide enough details that supports or explains the main thought of their article. Upon

reading the essay, it can also be noticed that some points which were irrelevant to use for the main

purpose of the essay, which is to criticize, were overemphasized. This resulted to the neglect of giving

deeper explanation on the real subject. With this, the authors should also have explained thoroughly how

the textual evidences were stated and used in the article. They should have tried to synthesize or combine

information from multiple texts or sources, making connections to come up with your own original ideas.

An instance is in paragraph number four. It is better if the authors did not just state example lines or

quotations from the article, but rather also explained how these affect the authenticity and how factual the

article appeal to the readers because of these.

The mechanics of how to essay was written also affected the credibility of the essay. It can be

observed that the authors stated abbreviations without mentioning first the full name of the institution or

subject. It can be examined on paragraph number one that the use of the abbreviation “PHIVOLCS” was

done without mentioning first the full name of the institution. Mistakes on an essay like this one lessens
the factuality of the essay as well as the authors’ credibility. If an article was made to criticize, the article

itself must be dependable and aside from stating good analysis, it can only be achieved through

appropriate language use and proper grammar and use of punctuations.

Finally, after presenting all their ideas they should have looked back in their thesis statement and

try to see if their points can relate to the comments that they are making and what their paper is trying to

prove.

On the contrary, speaking of the good points on the essay, it was an effective strategy that they

used certain related literature and studies to serve as their evidences and to support their main idea. It is

also a good strategy that the authors provided examples on the text to pertain on the subject that they

discuss. An instance for this is on paragraph number four; -- “The rhetorical strategies stated in this article

are first the statement of PHIVOLCS director Renato Solidum Jr. saying that “As of now, there is no

possibility to raise alert level 4 again over Taal as some of the parameters we are monitoring such as the

numbers of earthquakes further decreased compared to yesterday, while the sulfur dioxide level is now

too low to be detected”. In addition, it is also a good way that the authors ended the essay with a short

paragraph summarizing what they have pointed all throughout the essay.