For example, and perhaps one of the most evident proof is the usage of the term the “Bubble Generation” where she did not further elaborate on its definition. Next, the brief instances of historical events such as the Apartheid in Southern Africa, and several well-known academicians and individuals who analysed the Gen Xers which she did not properly elaborate about. Even if the facts that are put forward are generally known, there is quite a number of terms that may leave readers clueless. Henseler should have been more explicit in providing facts accompanied by comprehensive yet understandable explanations to ensure that readers are fully engaged with the article. In fact, the impression that it may leave now to readers is vague and it can affect the author from conveying her claims and strengthen her …show more content…
Not only that, Henseler also seems inductive in her reasoning as she largely depends on solid historical facts that can be referred to for validity. Other than that, the supporting details which consist of historical facts and experts opinions seem related to her purpose in providing a historic view of the Gen X experience in history. Nonetheless, she could have made her argument more firm if the factual claims she used were substantiated with references or proper citations as the absence of external support could affect its validity as a whole. In relation to that, the evidences hint of personal emotions and self-interest particularly at the start and ending of the article. Instances such as “straddle two political systems” and the unclear term “generation bubble” make the article less credible with the involvement of personal opinionated