This article talks about some people who give advice on what stocks to buy or sell. They share their opinions on a TV show called "Final Trades". Some of them think that Nasdaq, which is a big group of companies, will go up in value. Others like Spotify and Alphabet because they think these companies will do well too. Read from source...

1. The article does not provide any context or background information about why these stocks are relevant for traders and investors. It jumps straight into the "final trades" without explaining what CNBC's "Final Trades" segment is, who the participants are, or how their predictions might be useful to readers.
2. The article does not cite any sources or data to support the claims made by the analysts and traders featured in the segment. For example, it mentions that Morgan Stanley upgraded Nasdaq from Equal-Weight to Overweight and raised the price target, but it does not provide a link to the full report or any details about the reasoning behind the upgrade.
3. The article uses vague and subjective terms like "going higher" and "final trade" without defining them or explaining what they mean for readers who might be unfamiliar with stock market jargon. It also does not provide any historical performance data or comparisons to benchmarks to help readers evaluate the credibility of the predictions.
4. The article includes a section called "Zinger Key Points" which is supposed to summarize the main takeaways from the segment, but it fails to do so effectively. Instead of highlighting the key reasons behind each trade recommendation, it simply repeats the names of the stocks and the analysts who picked them. For example, it says that Joshua Brown of Ritholtz Wealth Management said Nasdaq is "going higher", but it does not explain why he thinks so or what factors might influence the direction of the market.
5. The article ends with a promotion for Benzinga's premarket coverage, which seems irrelevant and out of place in the context of the story. It also implies that readers should check out another source of information before forming their own opinions about the stocks mentioned in the segment, rather than relying on the article itself.
6. The article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or personal stakes that the author or Benzinga might have in the performance of these stocks. For example, it is possible that Benzinga receives compensation from Alphabet for advertising or partnerships, which could affect its objectivity and credibility as a news outlet. It is also possible that the author has personal holdings in some of these stocks, which could influence his writing style and tone.