Credibility of Online Articles on American Daycares Essay (Critical Writing)

Exclusively available on Available only on

Table of Contents

Arguments Presented
Rhetorical Devices Used
Modes of Reasoning Applied
Logical Fallacies Identified
Missing Assumptions
Authors’ Credentials and Affiliations
Online Magazines’ Reliability Evaluation
On Reliability of Compared Digital Texts
Works Cited

Arguments Presented

Before proceeding to reliability evaluation, a little clarification for the audience that they should consider “Childcare Is a Business Issue” as a credible and “The Hell of American Day Care” as one that does not have this property of written scholarly works. One can safely say that “Childcare Is a Business Issue” is an exemplary article with high credibility. Every argument presented by Modestino et al. can be considered valid and reliable because it is backed up by figures and inferences from academically conducted surveys and research done by the researchers themselves. From statements about the catastrophic impact of the latest global pandemic on family functioning and the direct relationship of childcare to business to proposals for reintegrating the topic of daycare into an entrepreneurial perspective, all this is supported by objective information. Their article looks less like a popular magazine one and more like a small study from scholarly publications, which is a clear sign of outstanding credibility. Modestino et al. even emphasize their exploratory purpose and question, which is not very common in non-scientific digital and print texts.

Cohn’s article is argumentative and narrative chaos from a structural perspective. The journalist states that the daycare system and early childhood education institutions in the United States are in crisis and very inefficient (Cohn). However, the basis of his argument is the only case of Jackie’s Child Care where the causes of the critical situation were not fundamental shortcomings of the kindergarten institution as a whole but a combination of local factors. They were the irresponsibility of Jessica Tata, the caregiver, and the local Texas business law (Cohn). His main argument could become credible if the argumentative sequence were built consistently and logically. Ultimately, Cohn only proved some legislative loopholes in Texas that allow individuals to run a daycare business even if they are not permitted to and do not have the necessary educational qualification. Cohn’s qualitative and reliable arguments are his statements about the historical problems of the American early childhood education system and the need for a new government-supported childcare structure because he provided supportive data from books and comparative statistics to these.

Rhetorical Devices Used

One will find a few figurative language techniques in the text of Modestino and her colleagues. A possible reason for this is the creators’ scholarly habits and professional attitudes. The present ones include rare epithets and appeals to ethos and logos. Some examples of the former include “sticky” and “cataclysmic” (Modestino et al.). Modestino et al. mainly apply appeal to logos in the first half of their website article, and the ethos technique can be found in the suggestions section when creators refer to each other. It can be said that other common types of figurative language have not been used in this article on the place of daycare in business.

Cohn’s text is full of appeal to pathos and contains elements of figurative language such as hyperbole and metaphor, which is not very welcome in the academic writing style. The article’s very title begins with “hell,” which is eye-catching but unprofessional for a competent researcher (Cohn). Examples of metaphors are Cohn’s words and phrases “mess,” “bruising,” and “mommy-war” used figuratively. One might notice the journalists’ frequent resort to appeal to pathos in the sections describing the story of Kenya Mire and Jackie’s Child Care. This traditional rhetorical technique usually distorts the presented facts and evidence and is often aimed at convincing the audience that the speaker’s or writer’s perspective is correct. It is one of the critical textual components that makes Cohn’s article non-credible.

Modes of Reasoning Applied

The hierarchy and structure of premises, assumptions, facts and conclusions presented by Modestino and other female researchers indicate that their primary method of thinking in writing was inductive thinking. It is a model of productive reasoning during which individuals “gather generalized information from specific scenarios to come to a conclusion, rather than taking specific assumptions from generalized scenarios” (Indeed Editorial Team). They start with thematically narrow and highly contextual premises about damaging COVID-19 influences on family processes and functions of working people (Modestino et al.). Then Modestino et al. gradually develop and transform these into a broad conclusion about the need to reintegrate childcare issues into the business discourse. The reason for choosing this mode of academic thinking lies in one of the professors’ goals, which is the formulation of hypotheses and theoretical solutions.

From the narrative structure and logical sequence that Cohn built, it can be concluded that he applied deductive reasoning when thinking about the problems of American daycare centers and writing this thematic paper. According to experts, “deductive reasoning is the process of drawing a conclusion based on premises that are generally assumed to be true” (Indeed Editorial Team). The journalist starts with the general premise that “American daycare is a mess” and ends up with the claim that it should be reformed according to the French or domestic military model (Cohn). As noted earlier, the developed inference is false and not credible since a logical fallacy was made during this thought procedure.

Logical Fallacies Identified

Surprisingly, there are no logical fallacies in the methodologically academic yet stylistically popular article of Modestino et al. Four professors and business experts successfully maintained a single logical chain of arguments and their overall consistency. Even the standard research textual sequence from a descriptive introduction to a conclusion with highly moral and inspiring elements has been retained, although this is an optional requirement in popular publications (Modestino et al.). The unbroken logic of this online article and the creators’ commitment to the principles of proper study conduction confirm that “Childcare Is a Business Issue” is a credible work.

Two logical fallacies were identified in a journalistic article by Cohn. The first one is an extreme extrapolation that can be described as a thought process mistake of “taking a minor detail or event and using it in order to conclude something relatively major” (“Jumping to Conclusions”). Another one is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, when researchers “find patterns and correlations in support of their goals, and ignore evidence that contradicts them” (Hesterberg). The general style of writing, the chosen case of Kenya Mire, the literary techniques employed, and the lack of particularistic counterexamples lead to thinking that Cohn already had a formulated opinion about the status of daycare in America. It is noteworthy that the author mentions that some kindergarten and early childhood education centers are performing well but do not give this topic as much space as he devoted to proving the childcares’ crisis condition.

Missing Assumptions

Like with logical fallacies and inconsistencies, professors and experts at Harvard Business Review have avoided missing assumptions. Every thematically close information needed for a better understanding of their articles, such as the current and future pandemic’s socio-economic impact and hypothetical outcomes of including the interests of working families with young children, is included and discussed (Modestino et al.). The fact that this aspect is taken into account is another illustration of the credibility of the text of Modestino and the professionals supporting her.

Another shortcoming of Cohn’s journalistic article is the absence of some assumptions crucial to his paper’s theme. The central individuals of the writer’s work are Kenya Mire, Kendyll Mire, and Jessica Tata, who are people of African and African American descent (Cohn). Cohn could speculate about the worsening impact of still-existing institutional racism on limited access to daycare and economic opportunities for ethnic minority single mothers. The journalist could also hypothesize a causal link between the US’s decentralized domestic politics and governance systems and the absence of a European-like national kindergarten system. Not including such obvious assumptions shows the writer’s lack of specific knowledge and well-developed research methodology, making his online work non-credible.

Authors’ Credentials and Affiliations

Another field that one should pay attention to when assessing the credibility spectrum of informational sources of their interest is the credentials and affiliations of their authors. This specific verifying procedure is necessary to answer key data reliability questions regarding the writers’ education, professional background, accomplishments, and focus field of expertise (“Author’s Credentials”). These serve as additional evidence of either the credibility or non-credibility of academic and non-scientific articles.

As noted in the introduction section, that article considered unreliable has a single author. It is Jonathan Cohn, and he is “a senior national correspondent at HuffPost” and “a former writer/editor at the New Republic and American Prospect” (“Jonathan Cohn”). He has a significant professional experience as a journalist and writer, and the central theme of most of his papers is American health care and its problems (“Jonathan Cohn”). Cohn has received and been nominated for some accolades and awards during his career and is considered a health policy expert in the media (“Jonathan Cohn”). Although he has been involved in research and scholarly activities, he does not possess the degrees or qualifications that would allow him to write about childcare rightfully from a scientific perspective. Therefore, his ability to accurately and competently collect, analyze, and interpret data on the state of American daycare is a matter of concern, which adds to his article’s non-credible status.

A digital article perceived as trustworthy is written by several creators, namely four persons, which is by itself a sign of higher credibility. Alicia Sasser Modestino is an experienced researcher with professor status in fields such as public policy, “labor and health economics,” and urban affairs (“Alicia Sasser Modestino”). Jamie J. Ladge has the same higher education degree as Modestino, and her “primary research interests are with the intersection of identity, careers and work-life integration in organizations” and “stigmatized social identities and gender and diversity issues in organizations” (“Jamie J. Ladge”). The third author is Addie Swartz; she has a degree in entrepreneurship and business and is an expert in fields such as “branding, building new revenue streams, product management, and creating non-traditional consumer channels” (“Addie Swartz”). The last creator mentioned is Alisa Lincoln, and she is the third qualified professor on this list of authors; she has specialized knowledge of sociology, health equity, and related humanities (Alisa Lincoln”). Each writer has a higher education and rich expertise in the realms the article discusses, making it reliable from an academic viewpoint.

Online Magazines’ Reliability Evaluation

A publication of the thematic text of one’s interest can also be illustrative regarding the credibility of the presented information. The bottom line is that those articles of “scholarly, peer-reviewed, academic, and refereed journals” go through various validation procedures, while popular magazines and professional journals only perform fact-checking (“Source Evaluation and Credibility: Journals and Magazines”). Childcare articles compared are online ones published by the popular category because they are written in everyday language, do not have jargon or professional or scientific slang, do not provide a bibliography, and their verification status is unspecified. The latter makes both articles equally less creditable and, therefore, one should consider other aspects of their publishing entities such as mission, design, and topical range or spectrum. These factors indirectly indicate the competence and professionalism of publishers and their writers.

The publisher for “Childcare Is a Business Issue” is Harvard Business Review. It is “a not-for-profit, wholly-owned subsidiary of Harvard University, reporting into Harvard Business School,” and its long-term goal is “to improve the practice of management in a changing world” (“Company Overview”). The fact of being non-commercial makes this text more reliable, as there are no non-scholarly drivers to distort the intentions, presentation of facts, and inferences of researchers. The presence of a purpose similar to those pursued by respected academic journals investigating similar topics shows that the publication follows only scientific interests and does not have any political affiliations or differentiate them from their organizational policies. Thematically, the Harvard Business Review adheres to the theme indicated in its title and related topics such as management, entrepreneurial policies and ethics, and the operation of commercial entities, which are also a sign of their high competence and credibility.

It can be said that the New Republic is the opposite of the Harvard Business Review as a publication. This magazine is a for-profit business organization in terms of ways to stay profitable. It makes their articles less reliable as economic motives can guide New Republic authors in their research and writing, and such influencing factors usually hurt overall objectivity. Moreover, the magazine has a clearly established and proclaimed political affiliation, progressivism, and democratic ideals (“About”). The involvement of politics in the research process and academic writing can result in incorrect analysis, criticism, and conclusions. The possible consequence is undermined credibility of the publisher entity and its texts. The New Republic’s official mission is “to rethink outworn assumptions and political superstitions” (“About”). It shows that its management and writers are biased in advance about existing traditional and contemporary policy-making practices, norms, principles, and rules; it is an unscientific approach. Another thing that makes this publisher unreliable is the topics they discuss, ranging from domestic and foreign politics to economics and ethical philosophy.

On Reliability of Compared Digital Texts

Although the first section of this assessment work indicated beforehand which online article has the qualities of reliability and credibility, the need for a conclusion remains. The academic and professional manner by which every discussed textual and content aspect of an article by Modestino et al. is developed and built makes their digital writing reliable and credible and vice versa. The same applies to Cohn’s paper but contrarily, simply put, his paper is too non-scholar to be taken as trustworthy for referencing and citation.