Critical Review

Introduction

For this session of critical thinking, we have been given the task to evaluate 2 articles that has the same core subject of implementing a specific curfew time for teenagers living Down under (example : Australia ).

The first article, entitled "It's 11pm. The cops know where your child is" was written by an anonymous writer with the benefit of being anonymous, the writer has expressed his/her feelings regarding the redundancy of the idea of the Australian government to impose curfew on the Aussie teens. He/She seems rather harsh and very adamant with his/her opinions. He/She does not agree with the idea of the government to nationalize curfew on teens and he/she questions the authority, or more exact, the role of parents in the lives of teenagers.

On the other hand, the second article with the title "It's late. Should we force them home?" was written by Penelope Debelle. Miss Debelle does not imply her thoughts exactly about the curfew for teenagers. Rather, she writes about the first-hands situations that 2 officers have encountered with teenagers hanging out late at night. Miss Debelle has a more subtle way of placing her words in her featured article. Her write up is more likely to have resulted from interviews held with the said officers.

Review

To curfew or not to curfew, that is the question that is primarily issued and asked in both these articles. "It's 11pm. The cops know where your child is" ( from hereon regarded as article A ), has stated that imposing curfew upon teenagers in Australia is a laughable issue and it shows the loop-hole in the workings of the Australian Government. Article A has also, in 2 different statements, questioned the role of parents in the lives of their teenage children. This is rather unfair for the parents and too harsh an issue to be asked. Yes, teenagers are the responsibility of their parents and yes, teenagers' whereabouts must be known by their parents. But then again, it is not only the parents that are responsible in controlling their children. See, every single day of our lives, we are exposed to many forms of mass media advertising things that could be considered rather explicit for teenagers. Drinking, smoking, loitering, and many more time-wasting activities are interpreted as something in the trend, and the teenagers that are exposed to these will somehow succumb to the thought of trying out these said activities. Walking on the street, in the mall, or even on the way to school, these adverts may be seen anywhere clearly. How can the teenagers be protected from these poisonous ideas? Teens may appear to ace in class, be the sports person of the year for their school, or even be the students' president. But because of temptations, they want to try the unthinkable, and the only time that they consider safe is after school, at night, going out for a regular movie night with friends (or so they tell their parents). They may have their own personal curfew and they may even come home at the designated time. But still, whatever that they do, in between the time that they were not within close proximity of their parents, is unknown. In some cases, all these immoral activities could even take place in the comfort and safety of their homes. The parents are oblivious to what their children are up to regardless of how strong their monitoring