Date: 5 October 2022
To: Panel Judges of International Persuasive Writing Competition
From: Jayna Lim, Intern
Subject: Chosen article as example of good writing
To me, a well-written article lies in the coherence of its argument and how useful the
evidence is in supporting an argument. After my analysis of both articles, I feel that Seah’s
article (2021) better fulfills these criteria. Seah’s article overall has a much clearer
structure and flow for its arguments and has embedded more variety and relevant
evidence to his advantage, making it better written.
Seah provides context and linkage for all key points, making the article flow smoothly and
easy to understand for readers like me as compared to Mokhtar (2022). Firstly, Seah’s
body paragraphs showcase a direct cause and effect, logically convincing readers of his
points. From paragraphs 2 to 21, Seah first shared the context of Singapore’s current tax
situation, followed by how the lack of tax on the rich is creating an issue globally, then
narrowing down the focus to wealth inequality in Singapore before diving into the statistics
to showcase the severity of the issue. Seah also include proper concluding sentences as
seen in “The difference between the haves and the have nots in Singapore have never
been wider” which reemphasizes his point about wealth inequality in Singapore (para. 21)
Another example in paragraph 25 shows a nice transition to the next point about
meritocracy. All of Seah’s points are hence smoothly linked, increasing the coherence of
his arguments, and guiding readers toward his ultimate goal of implementing a wealth
tax. In contrast, Mokhtar has a messier structure with his points jumping all over the place
as seen from how in paragraph 5 he mentions meritocracy in the concluding sentence but
the point about meritocracy only appears much further down in paragraph 21.
Additionally, in paragraph 25, the concluding sentence neither summarizes its point about
climbing the ladder nor does it link to the next point about divisive faultline. As such
Mokhtar’s article is less coherent, disrupting the flow of writing which can confuse readers
(Enago Academy, 2021).
1
Furthermore, Seah’s conclusion was better written as he managed to summarize his key
arguments while leaving an impactful call to action for readers. Whereas Mokhtar’s
conclusion was essentially a direct quotation and brought up new minor points which
defeat the purpose of a conclusion and only weaken his arguments (paras. 48-50). A
conclusion's purpose is to restate the main points of the article, reflect the author’s
opinions and “leave the readers on a mentally stimulating note” (J-Gate, 2019). Seah
does so with a nice summary of his key points and opinions that allows readers to have
a clear idea of what the article was about and why it matters and also includes a ‘punchy’
quote from Nelson Mandela that is thought-provoking (paras. 73-76). Thus, the
arguments made by Seah are stronger as they are neat and structured with a deeper
analysis and linkage, ensuring readers are not left confused.
Although Mokhtar has over 40 pieces of evidence and Seah has only around 30, Seah
utilizes a wider variety of sources and the evidence used is more relevant to his
arguments, thus increasing the quality of his evidence. According to Utah State University
(2020), a variety of sources allows the writer to have “a well-rounded view, include several
voices and perspectives, and diminish bias”. Despite both articles having credible
sources, the majority of Mokhtar’s sources come from other Bloomberg articles,
governmental figures, and websites while Seah’s sources comprise a broader range of
source types not only from their own and government websites but also from The New
York Times, Credit Suisse, Investopedia, Forbes and more. This eliminates the risk of
Seah’s evidence being biased, improving the reliability of his points. As Roman
philosopher Seneca the Younger once said, “It is quality rather than quantity that matters''
(n.d.)
Using the CRAAP test, Seah provided better evidence than Mokhtar in terms of relevance
in showcasing the severity of wealth inequality (Kurpiel, 2022). Seah gave strong
evidence of “the top 1% controlled 34% of all wealth” in Singapore in comparison to “18%
in Japan, 24% in Korea, 28% in Taiwan, and even 30% in capitalist United States” (paras.
17-18). The evident comparison made by Seah of wealth inequality in Singapore versus
other countries helps to give readers a frame of reference to truly understand the need
2
for a wealth tax. On the contrary, Mokhtar focused solely on statistics in Singapore so
even though readers know the rich are getting richer they do not understand how severe
the inequality is but more of how it's getting harder to survive the cost of living in
Singapore. Thus, resulting in the evidence being not as impactful and relevant in
supporting his argument (paras. 11-13).
Therefore, I propose Seah’s article for the coherency and flow contribute to a stronger
argument and the diversity and relevance of sources enhance the quality of evidence.
Word Count: 798 words
References:
Enago Academy. (2021, December 2). How coherence in writing facilitates manuscript
acceptance. https://www.enago.com/academy/coherence-academic-writing-tipsstrategies/
J-Gate. (2019, March 26). What makes a good conclusion?
https://jgateplus.com/home/2019/03/26/what-makes-a-good-conclusion/
Kurpiel, S. (2022, August 18). Evaluating sources: The CRAAP Test. Benedictine
University. https://researchguides.ben.edu/c.php?g=261612&p=2441794
Mokhtar, F. (2022, February 17). Singapore grapples with keeping the rich happy —
and taxing them too. Bloomberg.
https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=f6d7d0c6-43f8-11ed-ade77770414d5a75&url=L25ld3MvZmVhdHVyZXMvMjAyMi0wMi0xNi9idWRnZXQtMj
AyMi1pbmVxdWFsaXR5LWlzLXB1c2hpbmctc2luZ2Fwb3JlLXRvLWNvbnNpZGV
yLW1vcmUtdGF4LWZvci1yaWNoZXN0
Seah, E. (2021, September 20). Making the case for a wealth tax in Singapore. Rice
Media. https://www.ricemedia.co/wealth-tax-singapore/
3
Seneca the Younger. (n.d.). A-Z Quotes. https://www.azquotes.com/quote/588321
Utah State University. (2020, November 16). Variety of Sources: Home. Lib Guides.
https://libguides.usu.edu/variety
Reflection:
It was extremely difficult to choose which article was better written as both articles had really good
evidence that made it hard to have a differentiation. Nonetheless, I ultimately chose to go with the
feelings and thoughts I had when I first read both articles. I remembered feeling very confused
after reading the Bloomberg article as it was one whole chunk of information one after the other
and I felt overloaded. Not only that, but the points were also here and there and the explanation
and evidence were not very interlinked to one another so I had to stop many times to reread certain
segments to properly understand and see how it links back to their key point. However, in
comparison to when I first read the Rice Media article, I went through it pretty smoothly without
many pauses and was able to see the connection between each point more clearly. Thus, I went
with the Rice Media article as I feel that being able to read easily is one of the basic criteria for a
well-written article.
Word Count: 178 words
4