In the article, An Easier Way to Fight Bullying?

, the author, Anna North deals with the

issue of the role of bystanders in fighting bully. She argues that bystanders might be more
willing to step in to help if they are able to do so without standing up to the bully directly. His
strong stance towards such inclination is shown through words such as may be helpful,
experimental, prefer and behaviour which reflect his neutral and objective language. The
tone of impartial and concern have been used to convince students, social network users and
those engaged in society development to acknowledge that bystanders will be more likely to
help if they got the opportunities to intervene during the bully situation indirectly.

In arguing this issue the author has included various supports to strengthen her claim.
Her article which has almost a combination of ninety percent facts and ten percent of opinion
depicts her stand of bystanders more likely to have the opportunities to help bully victims
indirectly in those bully situations. Her references are based on three testaments: The
experimental data from various tests that have been conducted by Kelly P. Dillon of Ohio State
University, a testimony about peoples particular behaviour on social networks from Dr.
Mihaela van der Schaar of U.C.L.A. who has studied reputation on social networks, and the
study about bullying among students by Dr. Jaana Juvonen, a psychology professor from
U.C.L.A. all indicate the relevance and consistency of her support and hence her argument.

This article is mainly evidence-based due to the lack of showing or stating the authors
outlook on the issue. However, the evidences given are part of her almost 90 percent support
which are based on objective references and that leaves the personal judgement to be slightly
over 10 percent. Furthermore, the objective supports are considered convincing as they are
made up of statistic, recommendation, expert testimony and research finding, nonetheless the
percentages inevitably confirm that her article is to some extent more objective rather than
subjective. Plus, the author appears to be both inductive and deductive in her reasoning, as
she provides all the specific support as to what the bystanders would do and attempts to
generalize, and do the other way around for another point in the article.
 Moreover, it is noted that the author only wishes to inform the targeted audiences and
readers on how and what bystanders or people will do when there is a bully situation
happening near them based on the references included. For every issue, consideration should
be given to both sides of the divide. In her article the author focuses on the role and the
behaviour of the bystanders during a bully situation and all her support whether professional
factually or her own personal observation do touch on both bystanders will do something, A
total of 68 percent, however, intervened indirectly, by giving the monitor or the chat program
itself a bad evaluation and do nothing, the friend may not do anything right then and there,
when there is actually a bully situation happening near them. Such mention allows her to
contradict her points inside the article and consequently strengthens her stand by showing
fairness on the issue. As a result, her article is complete.

Finally,