Alright, so imagine you have a toy that everyone likes and wants to buy. This toy is called Carnival. Some people think this toy will be more expensive in the future, while others think it will be cheaper. They can make bets on whether this will happen by using something called options trading.

In the article, they talk about how many people made these bets and what their predictions were. Most of them thought the toy would become cheaper (bearish). Some people who have a lot of money also made big bets on what price the toy will be in the future. They think the prices could go from $13 to $20 for Carnival.

The article also talks about how many times these bets were made and how much money was involved. It shows that there is a lot of interest in this toy (Carnival) and people want to buy or sell it based on their predictions. Read from source...

1. The article lacks a clear and coherent structure. It jumps from one topic to another without providing a smooth flow of ideas or a logical progression. This makes it difficult for the reader to follow the main argument and understand the key points. A better approach would be to divide the article into sections, each focusing on a specific aspect of the options trends, such as volume, open interest, price targets, etc.
2. The article uses vague and imprecise terms to describe the options data. For example, it says that 23% of the investors opened trades with bullish expectations and 70% with bearish. This is misleading because it does not specify what constitutes a bullish or a bearish expectation, how they are measured, or over what time frame. A more accurate way to present this information would be to use percentages of positive or negative calls, along with the associated strike prices and expiration dates.
3. The article relies heavily on numerical data without providing any context or interpretation. For example, it reports that there are 14 calls and 3 puts for Carnival options today, but it does not explain what this means in terms of market sentiment, potential profits, or risks. A better way to present this information would be to compare the ratio of calls to puts with historical averages, or with other relevant indicators such as implied volatility or delta.
4. The article uses outdated and irrelevant sources to support its claims. For example, it cites a Benzinga Pro report from January 2023 as evidence for the whales' price targets for Carnival. However, this is over two months old and may not reflect the current market conditions or trends. A more reliable way to support the article's claims would be to use recent and reputable sources such as analyst reports, earnings statements, or news articles.
5. The article contains emotional language and biased opinions that undermine its credibility. For example, it says that "whales have been targeting a price range from $13.0 to $20.0 for Carnival over the last 3 months" as if this is a fact, rather than an assumption or a speculation. This implies that the author has a vested interest in the outcome of Carnival's options, or that they are trying to influence the reader's opinion. A more objective and neutral way to present this information would be to use phrases such as "some analysts believe" or "according to some market participants".

The overall sentiment of the article is bearish.