A company called Trade Desk had its shares go up by almost 20%. This means that people think the company is doing well and want to buy more of its shares. There are also other companies whose shares went up or down a lot before the market opens today. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that there is a direct causal relationship between The Trade Desk shares trading higher by around 19% and the 20 stocks moving premarket. However, this is not necessarily true, as there could be many other factors influencing the performance of these stocks. A more accurate title would have been "Some Possible Factors Behind The Trade Desk Shares Trading Higher By Around 19% And Other Stocks Moving Premarket".
2. The article does not provide any evidence or data to support its claims. For example, it mentions that Ambow Education Holding Ltd. shares jumped 203.6% to $0.4190 in pre-market trading after surging more than 15% on Thursday, but it does not explain why this happened or how it is related to The Trade Desk's performance. Similarly, it mentions that Applied Materials, Inc. gained 12.9% to $211.89 in pre-market trading after the company reported better-than-expected first-quarter financial results and issued second-quarter guidance, but it does not provide any details or analysis of these results or guidance.
3. The article uses emotional language and phrases such as "skyrocketed", "soared", "surged", "jumped", etc. to describe the stock movements, which may influence the readers' perceptions and emotions. This could be seen as an attempt to manipulate or persuade the readers rather than informing them objectively. A more neutral and factual language would have been more appropriate, such as "increased", "rose", "grew", etc.
4. The article does not address any possible drawbacks, risks, or challenges associated with investing in these stocks. For example, it does not mention the volatility of the pre-market trading, the impact of external factors such as economic conditions, political events, or global crises, or the potential conflicts of interest or biases of the sources cited in the article. A more balanced and comprehensive analysis would have included these aspects as well.