Seriously though I wanted to make separate post of this but it will fit in well here:
In academic exposition (Orange) hyperbole is just dead wrong. Big red marks from tbe teacher.
Words like “Obviously” are an opinion of the author and only have a place in editorial not in exposition.
In this vein, drawing any factual conclusions from editorial are also just wrong except for the conclusion “opinions were expressed”. What i see is many people begin in editorial then try to make a factual conclusion from those opinions. Again, this would have resulted in a big red “re-do” written on any undergraduate paper in any university worth attending prior to 1990.
ESP and other logical fallacies are other crimes against academic writing i see regularly.
This doesnt mean never do these things. In the previous sentence I used hyperbole intentionally for humor, not out of sheer sloppiness or ignorance of basic undergraduate writing.
Discarding Orange rules may be done Integrally, but more often than not what i see is just bad Green attempting to win over an audience emotionally and get them on the bandwagon. Integral knows how to formulate and support a point in Orange, and considers all impacts on a wide range if potential audience before breaking the rules.
Others:
Statement of ideology or indoctrination as fact, esp surrounding white male guilt. Economic theories stated as fact or any theory or hypothesis taken on as fact.
Naivete: “Independent” or “neutral” or “unbiased” sources of information. ALL information has bias and is dependent on funding. Teal writing looks for and recognizes inherent bias and does not have any “sacred cows”.
