The topic of the article is that there was an attack in Kenya and people did not care. But when it it hit Paris everyone did care.
Heading one: The main idea is people did not do anything to show that they care about the attack in Kenya.
Heading too: The main idea is that people mostly only care about attacks if they know someone like a family member or a friend that lives their.
Heading three: The main idea is that people care more about the Paris attack because they don't really know Kenya and Beirut.
Heading four: The main idea is people should care about any attack not just about Paris and they should not care less just because they know Paris.
Friday, December 4, 2015
- The author's point of view is that its unfair that people didn't care about the attack in Kenya but they did care about the attack in Paris. In the article is said that "When the Paris attack happened people were posting photos on Facebook and twitter of them in front of the Eiffel tower or they were changing their profile picture to red,blue and white". Another part of the article it said that " Yet back in April there was almost nothing about it on Facebook and Twitter. There was no outpouring of sadness and support, as there was for paris". Also in the article it said "Not many Americans have traveled to Kenya or Beirut. For that reason it is understandable that Americans did not react as much to the killings in those places. However, that does not mean it is right for us to care less".
- I agree with the authors point of view. I agree because I think if the people cared so much about Paris they should care about the other attack even if they don't know anyone their.
- The author's purpose is to inform. I know this because their is a heading and then information about that topic and also it is nonfiction.