The Aided Higher Secondary Teachers’ Association (AHSTA) has requested a one-day extension for Plus One admissions in Kerala, originally scheduled for Monday and Tuesday. This appeal comes in response to severe rainfall affecting the state, which has led to waterlogging in coastal and low-lying areas and the uprooting of trees, creating significant travel difficulties. The association emphasized that many students would need to obtain transfer certificates from their current schools after receiving allotments in the third phase or securing higher options.

Additionally, it was noted that Monday is a holiday in several districts, further complicating the admission process. The AHSTA expressed concerns about disruptions to internet connectivity that could hinder the timely submission of student details online. They argued that these challenges should not be attributed to teachers or schools but rather acknowledged as external factors impacting the admissions process.

Given these circumstances, AHSTA believes extending the admission period is essential to ensure all students have an opportunity to enroll successfully. Readers are encouraged to stay updated through local news sources for any developments regarding this situation.

Original article

The given text, ostensibly a neutral report on the Kerala Plus One admissions situation, reveals a plethora of biases and manipulative language. Upon close examination, it becomes evident that the text is not as objective as it appears.

One of the most striking biases present in the text is its implicit nationalism. The association's appeal for a one-day extension is framed as a response to "severe rainfall affecting the state," which creates an image of Kerala as a vulnerable entity in need of protection. This framing reinforces a paternalistic attitude towards the state and its inhabitants, implying that external factors (in this case, weather) can disrupt the functioning of institutions. This nationalist bias subtly positions Kerala as an entity worthy of sympathy and support from external authorities.

Furthermore, the text exhibits cultural bias through its emphasis on student difficulties in obtaining transfer certificates and securing higher options. The association's concern about disruptions to internet connectivity being attributed to teachers or schools rather than external factors reveals an assumption that teachers are responsible for ensuring smooth online processes. This assumption reflects a Western-centric worldview that prioritizes individual responsibility over systemic issues. The text also omits any discussion of potential solutions or alternatives to online submissions, further reinforcing this bias.

The language used in the text also betrays economic and class-based bias. The mention of "many students" needing transfer certificates implies that these students are likely from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who may face greater challenges in accessing education resources. However, this implication is not explicitly stated, leaving readers to infer it themselves. The use of vague terms like "many students" also downplays the significance of these challenges, reinforcing an economic bias that prioritizes individual effort over structural barriers.

Linguistic and semantic bias are also present throughout the text. Phrases like "severe rainfall affecting the state" create an emotional tone by emphasizing severity rather than providing concrete data on rainfall intensity or impact areas. This framing nudges readers towards sympathizing with affected students rather than critically evaluating the situation's complexities.

Selection and omission bias are evident in how certain facts are presented while others are left out. For instance, there is no mention of potential consequences for schools or teachers if they fail to meet admission deadlines due to weather conditions or internet disruptions. By omitting these perspectives, the text creates an unbalanced narrative that favors student interests over institutional concerns.

Structural and institutional bias are embedded within the narrative structure itself. By presenting AHSTA's appeal as a response to severe weather conditions rather than exploring alternative solutions or criticisms from opposing viewpoints (e.g., those advocating for strict deadlines), the text reinforces existing power dynamics between educational institutions and their stakeholders.

Confirmation bias becomes apparent when examining how specific information is presented without question or critical evaluation. For example, there is no discussion about whether extending admission deadlines would disproportionately benefit certain groups (e.g., those with more resources) at others' expense (e.g., those who have already completed their admissions). By accepting AHSTA's appeal without scrutiny, readers may assume it represents a universally valid perspective without considering counterarguments.

Framing and narrative bias become apparent through story structure choices made by authors such as ordering events chronologically instead focusing on cause-and-effect relationships between different events; using metaphors like 'stormy weather' which can evoke emotions but obscure complexity; selectively presenting evidence supporting AHSTA’s argument while ignoring contradictory views; creating false equivalencies between competing narratives by implying both sides have equal validity when they do not. Sources cited within this article could be analyzed further regarding their ideological slant credibility reinforcing particular narratives direction however since none were provided we cannot evaluate them properly