A big article says that Chinese businesses are doing better because they made more things and people want to buy them. This makes some companies make more money and their prices go up. People also think the government might help the economy by buying some stocks, so they want to invest too. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and overly optimistic, implying that the positive data on manufacturing alone is responsible for the pick-up in Chinese markets, ignoring other factors such as government interventions, market sentiment, global economic trends, etc. A more accurate headline would be "Chinese Markets Rise Slightly Following Positive Manufacturing Data".
2. The article fails to provide any concrete evidence or data to support the claim that property developer stocks went up due to a positive economic climate and increased buyer interest. This is an assumption based on a general trend, not a causal relationship. A more rigorous analysis would require examining historical sales figures, demand-supply dynamics, market forecasts, etc.
3. The mention of Cambricon Technologies and Foxconn Industrial Internet as examples of companies that benefited from the positive data is arbitrary and selective. There are many other industries and sectors that could have been affected by the manufacturing data or other factors, but were not mentioned. A more balanced and comprehensive report would include a broader range of stakeholders and perspectives.
4. The article relies heavily on unnamed sources and secondary information from Morning Post and Securities Times, without verifying their credibility, accuracy, or motive. This raises questions about the objectivity and reliability of the report, as well as the potential for bias or manipulation by these sources. A more professional and ethical journalism would require citing primary sources, providing evidence, and acknowledging conflicting views.
5. The article uses emotional language such as "jumped", "rallied", "surge", "buoyed", etc., to convey a sense of excitement and urgency, without backing them up with facts or logic. This creates a sensationalized and exaggerated impression of the market situation, which could mislead or confuse readers who are not familiar with the context or details. A more rational and objective journalism would require using clear, precise, and factual language, and avoiding hyperbole or hype.