Ford is a big car company that wants to make their cars better for the environment. They are trying to use parts made from olive tree waste and recycled plastic instead of regular plastic. This way, they can save trees and reduce the amount of trash in landfills. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized. It suggests that Ford is using olive tree waste as a primary material for making auto components, which is not true. The article states that Ford is piloting the use of olive tree waste combined with recycled plastic to create auto parts, but does not specify the proportion or extent of this usage.
2. The article uses vague and ambiguous terms such as "cutting-edge" and "environmentally friendly practices" without providing any concrete evidence or data to support these claims. What are the criteria for determining whether a material or process is cutting-edge or environmentally friendly? How does Ford measure these attributes, and what benefits do they provide?
3. The article relies heavily on secondary sources, such as Electrek and Ford's press releases, without critically evaluating their credibility, accuracy, or potential biases. For example, the article cites a report from Electrek that claims Ford recorded a 7.1% year-over-year increase in its U.S. sales in 2023, but does not provide any details about the methodology, data source, or time frame of this analysis. How can readers trust these numbers and their implications?
4. The article fails to address any potential drawbacks, limitations, or challenges associated with using olive tree waste as a material for making auto components. For instance, how does the quality, durability, and performance of these parts compare to conventional materials? What are the costs and environmental impacts of collecting, processing, and transporting olive tree waste? How scalable is this solution in terms of supply and demand?
5. The article uses emotional language and appeals to the reader's values and beliefs without providing any rational or factual basis for its claims. For example, the article states that Ford's initiative "has the potential to reduce the amount of plastic used in vehicle production while simultaneously decreasing the carbon footprint of auto parts." However, it does not provide any quantitative data, comparisons, or examples to demonstrate how this potential is realized or measured.

### Final answer: AI's article story critics are as follows: The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized; the article uses vague and ambiguous terms without providing evidence; the article relies heavily on secondary sources without critically evaluating their credibility; the article fails to address potential drawbacks, limitations, or challenges; and the article uses emotional language and appeals to the reader's values and beliefs without providing any rational or factual basis.