I do feel as though the New York Times was fairly criticized for their piece on nail salons. When you read the first rebuttal, it is obvious that there is critical information that was left out by Ms. Nir, especially when it comes to wages listed in advertisements. Mr. Bernstein’s rebuttal features actual proof that none of the advertisements in Chinese newspapers mention a ten dollar a day wage. Most have base salaries starting from $70 a day while the New York Times states that, that is the salary for an experienced salon worker. Also, the lack of discussing the fact that salon workers need to be licensed is also a bit sketchy. I know from personal experience that every manicurist at the salon I go to has their license displayed by their work table. When you go on to read the second rebuttal (a rebuttal to the first rebuttal) it appears that Mr. Bernstein is the one that did not do his research. The advertisements are placed into context and translated directly, which is something that probably should have been done in the original New York Times article. Explanations of the fact that apprentices made $10 a day while licensed people make $75 a day makes a huge difference. Clearly, the salons are exploiting illegals and the fact that they don’t have licenses. I think that when looking at all three articles, it is obvious that Ms. Nir didn’t explain as thoroughly as she should have in the original article and that Mr. Bernstein did not do as much research as he should have in his rebuttal. Mr. Luo’s criticism seems to be the most thoroughly researched and explained.