At work, we get these really awful opinion submissions. They are awful for mainly two reasons:

1. Illogical application or interpretation of presented evidence (not to mention, questionable selection of evidence for argument)
2. Absence of a clearly stated opinion that isn’t a generic “the government should do more to promote x” or “there should be equality in x area of society.”

Part of the problem may well be caused by differences in writing styles — it would appear that Chinese writing is not based on clear and logical flow of information and analysis — as well as things getting lost in translation.

When I probe my colleagues about what something means and how it possibly makes sense or why it’s even in the article — when it makes no reference to the original topic — they often admit that they couldn’t make sense of the author’s argument, either. So, I had this epiphany: A lot of these bizarre “opinions” and “arguments” for them are similar to lectures my father have given me! He’d start off on what I assume to be the topic, related to whatever transgression I might have made, provide anecdotal “evidence” that may or may not be true, go off on tangents here and there and include something that I think is supposed to be a metaphor. In the end, I’m thoroughly confused and, well, unconvinced.