Sunday, April 17, 2016

TOW 24

The New York Times recently wrote an article explaining the argument against headphones. The article begins by explaining how there has been a 33 percent increase in hearing loss in teenagers, and studies have shown that this derives from the over use of headphones. The article uses statistics and appeals to pathos in order to argue that people should use headphones less, however for the younger generation this argument is ineffective. The main premise of the article was explaining why the use of headphones became popular. It went through the history of world war II all the way up to current day. I think this makes their argument less effective because it spends a lot of time focusing on background information rather than how headphones can hurt hearing loss. Along with this, they constantly say that headphones have been causing this decrease in hearing loss but have no real evidence to back it up. The only solid piece of information they include is the 33% increase of hearing loss in teens. The article constantly refers to the people who need to use headphones as "children" putting an 'us against them' feel to the article which would repel teenagers from trusting the article. The appeals to pathos are somewhat effective, because it appeals to the fear people feel. Fear is one of the most effective feeling to appeal to because fear is what drives people to make changes. However, because their appeals are not backed up with evidence it causes their appeals to be questioned therefore non-effective. As a teenager, I read this article and will continue to use headphones the same amount, therefore it was not effective for me. I think they could have improved their argument if they included more statistics and studies that support what they are saying, focus less on background information, and increase appeal to pathos.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

TOW 23

           Everyone experiences stress. It is inevitable. Of course, a certain level of stress is needed in everyone's life in order to have motivation to do something. However, often we get to the point where the amount of stress in our lives is too much to handle. The Guardian published an article on how to deal with stress. In How to Cope With Stress, the Guardian uses lists and credible people in order to effectively inform readers of how to cope with stress.
         The article is divided into 8 different sections, and each section is numbered with a subtitle. For example, "1. Recognize the symptoms," (para 2). By dividing the long essay into subsections, it makes it easier for readers to follow and comprehend. The 8 subsections become like a set of directions for the audience to follow. This helps The Guardian effectively explain to their audience on how to deal with stress. It is much easier to understand short sections, and pick up on the important highlights, rather than trying to figure out the steps on one's own in one big paragraph. 
          The Guardian also uses quotes from professors and specialists. For example, they include "Frank Bond, stress expert and senior lecturer at Goldsmiths College, University of London," and "Mike George who runs stress management courses for companies such as British Telecom and American Express" (para 1 and 4). Not only does the Guardian include the names of these people, but also what they do that makes them credible. This appeals to ethos, which helps make their article more convincing to readers. Having the information written in the article coming from people who are specialized in the field of stress makes the information provided more reliable. This helps the Guardian effectively deliver their information, because people are far more likely to take the information if they trust it. 
          The bottom line is, everyone deals with stress. The Guardian uses lists and credible people to make dealing with this stress easier for people. The important thing is to remember how much stress is good, and when it becomes too much. 

Sunday, April 3, 2016

TOW 22

The New York times released an editorial about how virtual reality will become the next big thing. The editorial is built of three different people's opinions, and all of them argue that virtual reality is the best medium for connecting with people. This argument is effective because of the personal anecdotes that are included by each person. The first person's article was about her personal creation of a virtual reality involving bison. She described what it was like to see the bison running at her, and hear them as if she was standing in the middle of the pack. She described how she cared about bison in a way she never had before, because she felt like she was personally interacting with them. Virtual reality allowed her to feel like she was in the pack of bison as well. The second article is a personal experience from someone who experienced virtual reality through virtual reality goggles. The goggles put them in a scene where they felt like they were in a bar witnessing a bar fight. The participant described feeling real fear and concern and even tried to break it up. The virtual reality created a different feeling than what a recording of a bar fight could simply do. The third example was written by someone who was part of making a virtual reality movie about a survivor of Ebola. She described her experience as being the only way to tell this story, because it was the only way that viewers would be able to live her experience. All three of these stories are why the argument is so effective because it describes how virtual reality allows people to live an experience that they are not.