This article talks about three energy companies that pay people who own their stocks a lot of money every year. These companies are good choices when the stock market is not doing well because they still give money to their shareholders. The article also tells us which Wall Street analysts think these companies will do well in the future, and we can see how accurate they have been before. Read from source...

1. The article starts with a general statement about investors turning to dividend-yielding stocks during times of turbulence and uncertainty in the markets. This is a vague and broad claim that does not provide any specific or evidence-based reasons for why dividend-yielding stocks are preferable over other types of investments.
2. The article then introduces three energy stocks with high dividend yields without explaining how these stocks are related to the main topic or what makes them particularly attractive for investors. This is a weak and confusing transition that does not establish a clear connection between the introduction and the rest of the article.
3. The article cites Benzinga's Analyst Stock Ratings as a source of credibility, but does not disclose any information about the methodology or criteria used to determine the accuracy of the analysts. This raises questions about the validity and reliability of the ratings and undermines the trustworthiness of the article.
4. The article does not provide any details about the analysts who rated the energy stocks, such as their names, affiliations, credentials, or track records. This makes it impossible for readers to evaluate the qualifications and expertise of the analysts and assess the quality of their ratings.
5. The article fails to mention any risks or drawbacks associated with investing in dividend-yielding stocks, such as inflation, interest rates, market volatility, or corporate governance issues. This gives a false impression that dividend-yelling stocks are risk-free and guaranteed to generate returns, which is not true.
6. The article ends with an advertisement for Benzinga Pro, a subscription service that offers access to more analyst ratings and other features. This is a blatant attempt to sell the reader something without providing any value or utility in return. It also creates a conflict of interest for the author, who may benefit financially from promoting the service.

### Final answer: The article is poorly written, lacks credibility and objectivity, and contains several logical flaws and factual errors.