Avalanche is a type of digital money that people can buy and sell. Its value went down by more than 3% in one day, which means it became cheaper compared to before. This happened because fewer people wanted to buy or sell it, so the price changed. The picture below shows how much the price moved up and down in a day and in a week. The wider the gray bands around the lines, the more the price went up and down. Read from source...

1. The article is titled "Avalanche Falls More Than 3% In 24 hours", but it does not explain why the fall happened or what caused it. This is a lack of causal explanation and context for the reader to understand the significance of the event. A better title would be something like "Avalanche Price Drops Sharply: What's Behind The Decline?".
2. The article uses the word "continues" in the first paragraph, implying that the downward trend has been ongoing for some time, but it does not provide any evidence or data to support this claim. This is a logical fallacy of assuming a causal relationship without sufficient proof. A more accurate statement would be something like "The price has fallen 3.09% over the past 24 hours, which is part of a larger -6.0% decline over the past week."
3. The article compares the price movement and volatility for Avalanche using Bollinger Bands, but it does not explain what these are or how they are calculated. This is a failure to educate the reader on the technical aspects of the analysis and makes the article less informative and credible. A better approach would be to provide a brief definition of Bollinger Bands and how they are used to measure volatility in the context of cryptocurrency trading.
4. The article mentions that the trading volume for the coin has fallen 72.0% over the past week, but it does not explore the possible implications or causes of this decline. This is another example of a lack of causal explanation and context for the reader to understand the significance of the event. A more insightful discussion would be something like "The drop in trading volume could indicate a loss of interest or confidence in the coin among investors, which may contribute to the downward price pressure."
5. The article reports that the overall circulating supply of the coin has decreased 0.39%, but it does not explain why this occurred or how it affects the market value and demand for the coin. This is another example of a lack of causal explanation and context for the reader to understand the significance of the event. A more informative discussion would be something like "The decrease in circulating supply could indicate a reduction in inflation or an increase in scarcity, which may have a positive impact on the price of the coin."