A Times an article entitled, "Days Before Vote, Higher Vehicle Fees," appeared regarding an ongoing issue in California that deals with car license fees. The uproar on recent tax increases have people debating upcoming recall election. The selected candidate could affect the future of the car fees, essentially whether the tax stays or decreases. .
Readers could easily assume that rates could increase as much as three times, showing the worst case scenario, and really are not presented with a perspective to the full range of expenses. The information that should appear in the article is exactly how many people are paying "up to 3 times" as much, and how many people are playing the other amount (which is stated). .
A bit further in the article we are presented with a fact that the average annual vehicle license fee will raise from $70 to $210. This fact is then promptly followed with another fact saying no other fees have been affected. This first fact is instantly recognizable, it draws are attention to what we will now have to pay. Causing us to overlook the fact that is more positive. It is also briefly stated that they just pay this fee once a year, unlike other taxes (sales, luxury). That statement suggests that the fee is not that much in comparison to fortune of sales and luxury tax individually spent in one year. However we tend to look away from that fact when a we are exposed to money figures that it will cost us, pinpointing the problem on the tax raise.
With these first two problems in the article we can see sharpening taking place. Sharpening is concentrating a reader's thought on a fact the writer want to present, avoiding information that may not comply with their opinion. The information has been arranged to make us focus our interest (or emotional reaction) on the tripling rates, not thinking of the other rate possibilities. Also it centers attention on the amount, not how often the fee is paid, which is a yearly fee, not an everyday cost.
