ELC 501

ENGLISH FOR CRITICAL ACADEMIC READING

ARTICLE ANALYSIS:
COULD A TEST REALLY DETECT IF SOMEONE IS A COVID-
19 ‘SUPERSREADER’?

Prepared For:

PROF MADYA DR ZARINA SURIYA RAMLAN

Prepared By:

AIN SHUHADA BINTI OTHMAN (2020816448)

 ARTICLE ANALYSIS

This article was written by Lara Herrero, a research leader in Virology and Infectious
Disease of Griffith University. This article was published in The Conversation on 27 th October
2020.

In the article “Could a test really detect if someone is a Covid-19 ‘superspreader;?” the
author discussed issue on whether there is a test would detect the amount of active live virus a
person is carrying. The author used deductive manner in the text because it starts with general
point to specific point whereas she made the introduction of the article with the meaning of the
‘superspreader’. The author’s argument on this topic is negative because the article is denying
the test that can detect the amount of the virus in a person which already affected to COVID-19.

Most in the article the author’s position is biased to admitting the test can detect the
amount of virus in a person that affected to Covid-19. The author claim that there are many
factors thought to contribute to what makes someone a superspreader. Besides that it is
possible to detect people with a higher infectious viral load are more likely to infect others. She
also claims that InfectID-19-R is uncertain although the test will be able to quantify the amount
of replicating virus present in the swab, what that means to all of us. The virus still spreading in
the body.

There are few types of supporting detail that the author uses in bringing the issue. Most
of the author claim are more from its opinion and point of view. The author stated that the result
of the amount of the virus by using the test may be tricky to grasp, but the important part to
understand is the person has a lover amount of replicating virus than the test can guarantee to
detect. Besides, the author also claim that the test hasn’t yet been approved for use. The
researcher for the test have to be certain to obtain information and data whether a low
replicating viral load as per result of the test means a person is not infectious. In the last
paragraph he once again claim that there is more accurate to refer to ‘superspreading event’
rather than to particular people as ‘superspreader’ more generally.
 In this article the author fulfils the aspect of relevance, objectivity, completeness,
credibility and validity. The support is directly related to the argument for example there is no
way to know who may be a superspreader and the test might only give a measure of a person’s
replicating viral load just one piece of the puzzle. Most of the support consists fact and clear
evidence such as the test currently has not been approved yet as the test independently
validated by 360 biolabs prove that the author's argument has objectivity.

The tone that's been used by the author was objective and clear tone. The author was
being optimistic. The author's belief that the test might be can be use. But to be more accurate,
the author thinks that superspreading event are surely can be more easier to detect rather than
the superspreading person.

From the article, the author's purpose was to inform about how far a test can detect
someone is a Covid-19 superspreader. The author also informing the reader, even the microbio
says that the InfectID-Covid-19-R area accurately detect a virus concentration as low as 1,500
TCID50 per millilitre with 99% specificity. The result is the test still has not been approved yet.

Finally, since the author would like to share the knowledge and the word used aren’t
highly scientific so it’s easy for the reader to digest it. My view of the article is that the author
successfully made the readers to understand each point of the article.