The title of the review is usually the important part because out of all of these reviews, the title is what catch the reader so it must be interesting. But it seems like in this culture the reviews do not include any title but rather they are recognized with the user's name at the top. However I included a title at the beginning to give my audience a sense of what they should expect from my review and my perspective.

Over here, we see what I am rating this movie. I give value as does everybody else in this media to finalize the worth of this movie.

This digital culture's audience rate the reviews by a thumbs up or down. The more it has "thumbs up" the better. However, because my review is very recent, it does not have any rating from the readers.

As here we can see it has been a helpful review with 27 thumbs up.

Even though I am mentioning a bit of the story, it does not include huge spoilers, therefore, unlike this review, I decided to not hide it from my audience.

In general this digital culture both include longer and shorter reviews which my review fall under one of the long ones.

Here I am emphasizing that this movie does indeed worth watching which is a normal comment on this review because the audience wants to know if it worth their time.

I am appealing to pathos by using the audience’s emotion in this review. I am relating a movie to real-life to make the movie more appealing. It gives the readers a chance to relate this movie to real-world.

This is an example of pathos. It is using our emotion to imply the impact of what Indian farmers will be going through if their protest fail. We can observe that nh was aiming to use our emotion as audiences by implanting words like "impoverished" or "find it harder". I believe the twit is still early for any meaningful comments by those people who are aware of what is happening in India now, so the chain of comments shows that this twit has not been effective. I, on the other hand, believe this person might be aware of the issues in India because s/he might be Indian or at least someone close to this culture based on their twit.

This is an appeal to logos. We are given facts and data, a screenshot of a source Indian Express which confirms how this protest in India is related to environmental impacts. Although this source might not be familiar and trustworthy to us, it seems like a decent source that identify this relation of Greta as an environment activist to sharing this article. However, it seems like in this context, as a reply to Greta, no one showed any interest to this reasoning so I do not count it effective.

Here we observe that this reply to Deepak was an ethical appeal. It's purpose is to provide proof for the audience that Greta Thunberg is a credible author who is speaking up about this issue. She is credible enough to address this event and broadcast it to her followers to support Indian farmers. These are only three achievement but it is not limited to these. We can see from the replies, that it was not a strong ethical appeal. As MuFat was not convinced that Greta has an expertise to express this event on her twitter account.

The writer is explaining Frank's initial goal and how reached one million dollar he was aiming to make.

This paragraph is indicating the success Frank has made so far in his plan.

This is a fact about the person who is the subject in this article, to show some proof of the method he has used during his research. It's goal is to inform the audience of the method Frank has used to reach his goal.