Critiquing "Hillary Clinton's Triumph, and Burden"

Right from the title, Hillary Clinton's Triumph, and Burden, we can tell that this author supports Clinton, as the author emphasizes on the amount of work and burden for Clinton. The author's claim in this editorial seems to be that Clinton is doing a great job so far, has good intentions, and that you should vote for her. The intended audience for this article seems to be directed towards young Americans, since the author emphasizes on the point that Clinton needs to appeal to the younger general public, because they are important. It is a fact that Clinton definitely set some impressive milestones for women's rights, as stated in the article, but it isn't hard to find out that the author is biased towards Clinton as he or she uses terms like "more hard work" and "exapnd her ideas".

Although I agree with the author on some parts, like when he or she addresses the importance of inclusive voting for everyone, especially the younger people, but the author uses Trump's signs of lack of knowledge to make his point of Clinton not answering some important questions at the news conference invaild, which I don't think is fair, because in fact, it is true and Clinton shoud clarify some things.

The author does not have much evidence to back up the claims. The author only has unnecessary statistics, like the 50 percent of young people describing themselves as "independent", but generalized on parts where evidence may be helpful, like when the author addresses the opportunities Clinton has to "demonstrate her commitment".

However, the author seems to be logical, because they don't avoid some crucial facts, like the young Americans not having enough trust in Clinton, and that she should address it, despite the words "isn't fair" and "accurate", although the author uses a pathetic tone when he or she mentions the young people supporting Sanders because of his demands.

Overall, I think that the author could use more evidence to specify and clarify some of their claims, but the editorial itself is logical, and mentions some critical points. I definitely don't agree with the author completely, but there are some points that I would agree with.