Missing Support K Wong P Thomas

The article was published The Atlantic.

The original audience is those who use Google and those who understand the concept of his claim that Google is making us stupid. Those who read and write have slowly began to see the phenomenon of how our brains process information from reading on the internet because it is a new setting other than books. (Value the reading experience of literary types. Age possibly: Middle aged 1960s,1970s,1980s; faculty within long time teaching.) The Atlantic talks about international problems which consists of current issues, politics, business, entertainment, and culture with unbiased information.

As Nicholas Carr continues to talk about and claim that the idea that our minds should operate as high-speed data-processing machines. The question is where did he get the idea from? It seems more like a opinionated claim since as readers we believe that every mind if different and have a different process of information. He claims that Google and other companies are there to provide advertisements and claim information on each individual. "Economic interest to drive us to distraction" he doesn't provide much support for how he came to the claim.

Claims, evidence, and linkages should in the end help the reader decide whether they agree or disagree with the claim. But it's very unknown due to the fact that it will continuously be debatable.

Another example of poor support by Nicholas Carr is on pages 269 when Carr uses a playwright, Richard Foremann, as his support. Carr quotes Foremann saying, "we risk turning into 'pancake people' - spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button". This causes the readers to question if a playwright is the best support that Carr could find to back up his claim.
Nicholas Carr's claim that "The Internet promises to have particularly far-reaching effects on cognition", has no support because during the time Turing obviously did not have access to the Internet.
Carr also claims on page 264 that "we may well be reading more today than we did in the 1970s or 1980s, when television was our medium of choice. But it's a different kind of reading". These three claims are backed up by no support or verification that would need clear support in order for us as readers to agree with the author's claims.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License