No. The way that you structured this whole article is strange. It doesn't feel as you read through that you are talking about the title nor does it feel like each subsection is connected in either way. Generally a reader expects: introduction to concept, hypothesis/argument based on introduced concepts, supporting arguments for or against the hypothesis, and finally a conclusion. I feel like you are missing the introduction entirely, so a reader has to assume the title is your argument (as sometimes appears in news articles). Given that argument you end up wandering through 3 sections that do not seem related to that title, and at the end I still have no idea what you wanted to say.
There is no conclusion or resolution to what was introduced so I still can't fathom what you are trying to share. It feels like a situation where only half the thoughts hit the page and since we don't know the context we can't fill in the gaps.
Our issues are in the actual writing of the post, not as much what you are trying to say because we can't even get to that.
There is no conclusion or resolution to what was introduced so I still can't fathom what you are trying to share. It feels like a situation where only half the thoughts hit the page and since we don't know the context we can't fill in the gaps.
Our issues are in the actual writing of the post, not as much what you are trying to say because we can't even get to that.