This commentary is an attempt to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article entitled Big

Bang Theory - An Overview, which is taken from the website allaboutscience.org. It aims to mainly
evaluate the content, language, and structure used to convey the ideas presented in the text.
To start with the content, the claims of the author are clear in that it is easy to follow and understand
them. They are also arguable because they are inviting a topic of debate and controversy which is
that of the Big Bang theory. Yet, they lack originality due to the pervasiveness of this subject matter
as it does not bring novel ideas or findings to help perceive the problem from a new point of view.
To my knowledge, it repeats what has already been discovered and stated in previous studies. As for
evidence, it appears that direct quotation is employed to back up the claim that the Big Bang theory
does not have only one model. There is certainly reference to credible sources from notorious
scientists in the field of astrophysics like Stephen W. Hawking and George F. R. Ellis. Yet, the
evidence suggested in this article is sometimes based on personal opinion. For example, it seems
reasonable to assume that the frequent use of the second personal pronoun “we” makes it lack
objectivity. In addition, evidence is still a statement that can be put into question. However, the
author presents it in the form of a belief that weakens it like when he/she asserts: “we are
reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.” The high degree of certainty is
inappropriate in this context because we can never be sure that the universe did have a beginning.
Moving on to the conclusion, it is very flawed and weak in that it does not culminate what has been
discussed in the entire article. It rather shifts to another idea which makes it sound more like a
continuation of the claims and evidences rather than a conclusion. It is also illogical for it relates the
field of science to theology while the work has been focusing on the Big Bang theory only from a
scientific perspective. As such, the author overgeneralizes the issue by the end which disorients the
reader and makes the text lose its flow. Having evaluated the content of the article, it is now
possible to address the language from a critical standpoint.
This leads to discuss the language used in the text that considerably lacks modality and this further
supports the previously held claim that evidence suggests belief instead of scientific measures.
What is also noteworthy is the informal register which violates the rules of a proper academic
language such as the prevalent use of contractions like “didn't, don't, won't.” Indeed, the style is
supposed to be employed in spoken everyday discourse like the utterance “well, to be honest, we
don't know for sure.” Lack of formality is reinforced through the statement “After its initial
appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang")” in which the author uses parentheses to refer
back to the concept instead of restating it at the beginning of the sentence. By contrast, it should go
as follows: “After its initial appearance, the Big Bang apparently inflated.” This example not only
distorts the formality level of the language but also breaks its parallel structure. A problem of
coherence arises when the author makes an irrelevant point that results in the invalid flow of
reasoning. In fact, he/she explains the evidence for the theory in one paragraph and abruptly adds an
idea about how Penzias and Wilson won the Nobel Prize for Physics for the discovery they made.
This makes the reader lose track of the flow of ideas that are supposed to go smoothly, which
creates, as previously mentioned, a remarkable problem of coherence. Last but not least,
punctuation rules are violated and that makes the text further belong to the informal style. For
instance, there is no use of comma before however in this statement: “According to the many
experts however,” and there is no use of commas before and after the linking word however in here:
“Experts however say that there was no explosion.” After discussing the language and style used in
this text, it is now mandatory to finalize the commentary by critiquing the structure.
Broadly speaking, the article under examination presents the structure of the paragraphs in an
organized fashion. At the very least, the headings help guide the reader through the ideas generated
in the text. Besides, the topic sentences identify the main ideas of the paragraphs, sometimes with
the use of a question to intrigue the reader. There is also an attempt to control those ideas by
elaborating and expanding on them through quotations and reported discoveries. However, if one
looks closely, they will notice that the structure is fragmented in that it lacks concluding sentences
by the end of the paragraphs making it devoid of transition between them; thus, losing coherence
and text flow. In fact, the author focuses on the minor ideas instead of drawing a conclusion from
the evidence. To illustrate, let us look at this example of a conclusion which goes as follows:
“finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable
universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.” This is actually another argument
that supports the Big Bang theory and it clearly does not conclude the whole discussion. The other
point to consider is that the last paragraph which is the conclusion of the article is illogical and
unjustified as it does not relate to the previous propositions that deal with the Big Bang theory from
a scientific perspective. Overall, the structure of the text is mainly weak in the conclusion.
To sum up, the following commentary provided a critical appraisal of the inner workings of the
article. It can be widely perceived as a clear and easy-to-follow article especially for readers seeking
fast to comprehend information on the Big Bang online. Yet, it has some weaknesses that need to be
taken into consideration so that it improves.