See attached document
Critique the Article given below in 5 paragraphs. INTRODUCTION, 3 BODY PARAGRAPHS AND CONCLUSION. Include a clear thesis statement in the introduction paragraph and make sure you don’t criticize and only critique Steps for Working in Word's "Track Changes" feature and Your Essay Versions 1. Copy the DRAFT of your essay, exactly as is, into a new, blank Word doc named "Draft Essay". Turn on "Track Changes". If you are new to using "Track Changes," this Microsoft tutorial will help you get oriented to the product: If you want to show edits made in a document, turn on Track Changes. Select Review, Track Changes, and Word captures any edits you make. To turn off Track Changes, select Track Changes. Word stops making new edits, and any made stay in the document. You can always see markups that someone makes. Select Display for Review and select the option you want. Simple Markup points out where changes are with a red line in the margin, All Markup shows all edits with different colors of text and lines, No Markup hides markup to show what the incorporated changes will look like, and Original shows the document in its original form, and in the Show Markup list, you can select the type of revisions you'd like to see, such as Comments, Insertions and Deletions, Formatting, Balloons, and Specific People. 2. Complete the tasks associated with the Unit Assignment to revise, edit, and proofread your essay. Check that the edits are visible: You may need to click Review and change to "Final: Show Markup" in the "Tracking" pane 3. Upload this draft version of the essay to the Critique Essay Assignment folder. 4. In the "Changes" pane, click the dropdown under "Accept" and click "Accept all Changes in Document." Make a final check of the essay and format the essay in APA. Rename the file "Final Essay" and upload it to the Critique Essay Assignment folder. There are now two versions of the same essay: one with track changes visible AND one with all changes accepted and final formatting applied. REFERENCE IN APA STYLE: Politics has become a thankless, dangerous job: OPINION CRITIQUE ESSAY DRAFT The article titled “Politic has become a thankless, dangerous job” was published in Globe and mail in October 2021. The article is about the issues that are faced by the politicians and how the politician’s life is always in danger. The job of a politician is not easy as it always keeps you on radar of the public. Some of the decision made by the politicians can outrage the public and this can turn out to be dangerous for the politicians. The articles have outlined several instances where a politicians had to face public outrage that even turned out to be threatening for the lives of the politicians. Politics as a dangerous job: This statement has been used very often used in the article. However, out of several opinions, involvement of social media in making it dangerous has been one of the apt statements. Politics is one of the oldest job/places in any country and politicians are always honoured and specially treated in countries worldwide. Since times, they have received immense love and appreciation from the world. Politicians build the laws of the society that act as pillar to maintain harmony and peace. The advances in technology and social media have given access to people to know each and everything and also to blame the politicians for their wrong moves. People have been constantly using social media handles like twitter and Facebook to show their anger. These remarks sometime spread hatred in the society that lead to such violent actions. I feel this statement about abusive use of social media is very apt and further exploitation should be monitored. Ms. McKenna is precisely the type of person we hope to attract to politics: Smart, articulate, passionate about important issues, a fierce advocate for women and girls. Her absence leaves a hole”. The article somehow seems to be biased, the essay have mentioned the statements given by Catherine McKenna in the starting lines, and the statement is about how the politician has been threatened. The author chose the statements which also focuses on how Catherine McKenna was paying off for doing well to the society. The clear message here is that the good work done by her has landed her to a dangerous situation. Politics is the backbone of each society and articles like these sends a wrong message and stops the youth to participate in politics. The harsh language used in the articles has tarnished the politics as a place to work. It also makes people to feel unsafe, a place where politicians are unsafe will never be safe for the general public. However, the actions taken against Catherine McKenna were completely unjust and starting the article with her incidents has definitely complemented the complete article. Some are responsible for the kind of incendiary language that stokes division and hatred. With this statement, the writer has balanced the biasness that was observed in most sections of the articles. The complete articles points out the instances where politicians have been abused and exploited and the writers portrays them as victims for doing good to the society. The author has added only one statement at the end to balance the complete article. Politics is indeed a troublesome field where people’s reaction are often unpredictable. There actions of the politicians are always critically evaluated by the society as the decisions made by the politicians somehow decides the fate of the country and its people. There are different type of politicians where some of them have completely tarnished the image of this field while some politicians always try their best to do good for the society. Therefore, politics will always be a sea full of opinions. The message that the writer wants to convey is that politics is undoubtedly a tough job. There are different sections in the society and every decision made by any politician will definitely outrage one or another section of the society. With advances in social media, politicians are getting vulnerable to publics hatred and outrage. The article has used very apt incidents which explains the criticality of the job. The writer seems disappointed throughout the articles as such incidents surely have negative impact on the society. In conclusion, the writer has evidently conveyed their thoughts about politics being a thankless job but also balanced the article at the end. By using the statement “It needs to be said that not all politicians are blameless here”, he wants to convey the message the politicians should be treated on basis of their actions. MAIN ARTICLE Politics has become a thankless, dangerous job: OPINION When Catherine McKenna announced she was leaving politics, she experienced an instant sense of relief. It wasn't the insane workload and hours - she was never afraid of hard work. Or the travel and the back-to-back meetings and the corrosive effect of snide partisanship. No, what she felt immediate respite from was fear - the fear that accompanies today's politicians, especially ones with high-profile roles overseeing controversial files. "I think the biggest thing was as a cabinet minister I constantly felt on edge," the former environment minister told me in an interview. "It was the constant threats, people verbally accosting my staff and defacing my constituency office and sending me smashed up Barbie dolls. "You realize people know where you live. You do think a lot about the safety of your children. It's like this horrible cloud that follows you everywhere, and you have to try and pretend it's not there but you can't. You have to take threats seriously." Ms. McKenna is precisely the type of person we hope to attract to politics: Smart, articulate, passionate about important issues, a fierce advocate for women and girls. Her absence leaves a hole. But who can blame her for wanting to leave given the constant harassment she faced? Why would anyone want to go into politics these days? One never knows when deranged, malicious utterances on some social media platform might lead to something more serious. The recent killing of British MP David Amess, stabbed to death while meeting constituents in a church hall, is a tragic reminder of the increasing threat politicians all around the world face. While the risk of violence has been something legislators have always had to live with, there is a sense it's much worse now, amplified by social media and the ecosystem of the aggrieved. "If you hate Catherine McKenna, Facebook will go find you other people who hate me too." It seems we have a few choices. One option is finally getting serious with the social media platforms that are creating a dangerous work environment for politicians. Facebook and Twitter, among others, have said they will deal with the issue but have demonstrated little will to do so. This is no longer a freedom of speech issue. This is a public safety issue, and we shouldn't fear trampling on certain rights in the name of a safer world. The second option is massively increasing the security budgets for our elected officials. In Canada this would cost billions. Think about the home security systems that would be needed, the bodyguards. The fortress you would have to turn the House of Commons into. I doubt this would be very appealing to the public. The third option is doing nothing and accepting that increasingly fewer of our best people are going to want to have anything to do with civic life because of the risk it poses to their personal safety and that of their families. I would argue this is already happening. Every day it seems there is another report of a politician being screamed at or threatened in a public place. It happened to Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner when she and her husband were out for dinner during the election campaign. A man came up and started yelling at her. The same thing happened recently to Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart. He and his wife were at a downtown liquor store when a man in his 50s approached the mayor and started screaming at him, daring him to step outside and fight. He then started in on the mayor's wife. Police were called, and the matter remains under investigation. I thought about this when I interviewed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in downtown Vancouver in July. After the interview, he plunged into a waiting crowd to take selfies. How easy it would have been, I thought, for some lunatic to do serious harm to the PM. Scenes like that are likely soon coming to an end. It needs to be said that not all politicians are blameless here. Some are responsible for the kind of incendiary language that stokes division and hatred. The Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol is a prime example of