Reading respond

Today, I read a report about the trade war between China and the United States. According to the
report，the United States hopes to use trade negotiations to encourage China to implement a more
market-oriented economy. However, a key factor in the future agreement may eventually
strengthen the economic strength of the Chinese government. Trade agreements may lead China to
promise to buy hundreds of billions of US dollars of US products. This may further consolidate
Beijing's role in the economy.
On the one hand, let's discuss the bias in this report. First of all ， we know that an editor can
express a bias by using headline, they can summarize as well as present carefully hidden bias and
prejudices. The title of this article is ”China Purchases Could Undercut Trump’s Larger Trade
Goal”, we can see from it that the title clearly points out the disadvantages of China's acquisition
to the U.S. economy. This report was written by Americans. In the Sino-US trade war, they were
more concerned about the interests of the United States, worried about the adverse effects brought
by China, and expressed their disapproval through the title. Secondly, they can also show a bias by
choosing to use or not use a specific news item. From the report, we can see that the author has
described less about China's concessions and good intentions in trade. However, there are many
introductions about China's possible expansion of its influence on the U.S. market. For example, it
says, “We are handing them the ability to coerce our companies, ”and “Such a purchasing
arrangement could also provoke challenges at the World Trade Organization”.
On the other hand, we can talk about the logical fallacy in this report. For example, in the report,
China had planned to buy Boeing 737 MAX series planes. However, in early March a 737' s
largest passenger plane crashed in Ethiopia, the second fatal crash of the new plane in less than

five months, raising questions about these plans. China suspended the airworthiness certification

for the model entirely. But Mr. Aboulafia said there’s a very good chance that this is less about
public safety and more about trade negotiation leverage. However, we should be very clear that it
is really for the sake of public safety to stop this project. The editor quoted such biased and
special-interest remarks, it is obviously a logical fallacy.
At last, through this report, I understand that facts and opinions are obviously separated. We must
have the ability to distinguish right from wrong. We should understand the nature of the incident
from the objective facts of inside. The most important thing is to think critically and look at
problems more rationally.