ics helps Yates gain some credibility from his reader. He says, "the L2-equipped Celeron was33 percent faster than the non L2-equipped Celeron" (35) while the PII-450 performed "as high as 20% over the [PII-400]" (35). In addition to using percentages, Yates also uses computer prices like "$1,349 for the 3000 GL [Celeron equipped]" and "$2,400 for the Deskpro EN [PII-450 equipped]" to show that the Celeron is cheaper than a PII. Backing up his argument with the use of statistics helps Yates to gain some credibility for a moment. As the article proceeds, Yates begins to lose his credibility. After a couple of paragraphs, he gets sidetracked. Yates dedicates two whole paragraphs differentiating between the two kinds of Celeron. He says, "all non-cache versions of Celeron are[while the] Celeron processor with 128KB L2 cache will all be" (35). Although one might see this as background information necessary to get acquainted to the subject, many readers (like I) will get annoyed because it doesn't pertain to Yates's argument. It shows that Yates has little knowledge on the subject. Yates gets back on track but deviates again in his conclusion. This time Yates talks about the expansion (upgrade) capabilities of the computers that he mentions in his article. He says, "expansion in all three devices is more than adequate with at least two PCI slots and two ISA slots" (41). His conclusion coupled with unwise organization leaves the reader without a clue of the author's main point. Yates organizes his article into parts to help divide the contents of his subject. Like Spector, he tries to use a step-by-step approach so that he can move efficiently. Although organization plays an effective role in helping focus the reader's attention on a particular subtopic like distinguishing between the two kinds of Celeron, it doesn't provide the overall coherence. Yates first introduces the Celeron and the PII. In the next section, he contrasts the tw...
