Can someone help with writing a paragraph:
Read and analyze this article from the New York Times about how they decided to "revise" or "redesign" their Sunday Magazine format.
Decide whether you like or don't like one of their ideas and consider the reasons why you do (or don't).
Write a "well-developed" paragraph that
*begins with a clear topic sentence (subject + your slant)
*uses clear evidence or support to defend your opinion
*uses a colon with a list of your ideas
*has a clear conclusion.
I wasn't crazy about all the hoopla over the New York Times Sunday magazine because I am a traditionalist at heart. I can remember waking up on Sunday mornings with the sun streaming in and my dog under the kitchen table. I would eat my cornflakes while flipping through the magazine - at the same time resting my feet on my sleeping dog. The dog never moved until he noticed the toast was ready; its aroma wafted down to his nostrils and then he would open his eyes. In this tranquil and almost motionless setting, reading the long one page TImes articles with just one large photo and just two dense pages was a perfect format for Sunday reading. I didn't need charts or graphs or page turns to orient myself to different features. One or two quotes from the article pulled out and highlighted were enough. Today, looking at the new design, I hate a few things: the cutesy over modern text (font) styles, the busy addition of colorful blocks of text I feel I have to read,* the floating graphs and charts with pseudo urgent phrases popping out at me. It feels like an entirely different experience and magazine. There's something about that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" line I think about everytime I read the new so-called improved Times. Give me tradition.