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.