Final Draft K W

The Atlantic is an American magazine that is published in Boston containing tabs for politics, business, tech, entertainment, health, education, sexes, national, global, video, and lastly magazine. The Atlantic provides an excerpt of Nicholas Carr's "Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains". Nicholas Carr's excerpt was published online and only for online viewers. It's purpose is to claim that his statement is valid by providing examples and opinions, Nicholas Carr wants his claim to persuade those who don't believe that Google (ex. Internet) has caused a ruckus in the human brains. Nicholas Carr believes that Google (ex. Internet) is causing the human brain to function slowly. Thus, making the ability to obtain and collect information from old fashioned readings (books, magazines, long texts, etc.) to become very difficult. His statement is clearly for a specific audience, when thinking about kairos there is a time and place for everything.

The main audience for this reading are those who used to/is still reading a lot, but by converting into the internet style of reading it becomes a slow brain function. Because of the internet he states that it has caused many readers to lose focus and interest after a couple of long texts/paragraphs. He provides this argument/debate for those who value the reading experience of literary types. The author's motivation for the argument is possibly because he also values literary texts and is a literary type. He refers to his "friends" as a personal evidence which allows the reader to have some kind of personal connection but it is considerably bias. He also notes that his claim affects anyone world wide who are considered to be a literary type.

But regarding his claims, evidences, and linkages there are some poor ties that Nicholas Carr wasn't able to accomplish. 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. Nicholas Carr provides missing support page 269 when Carr uses a playwright and 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 claim's 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. Because of his failed connection/linkage between his "evidence" and "support" causes this to be a bad argument.

He provides that the old information on the brain, a mental meshwork has now been seen as very "plastic" because of its way internet is related to how the society of media sees things. The internet may be filled with false and true information but one would never know which is which. I feel that this excerpt isn't a well provided argument because of the way Nicholas Carr sites and provides missing proof of his statement being valid. He has shown good points but there are many missing support and that brings a fall on the argument. (Linkage) Nicholas Carr also uses personal evidence as him and his friends who both believe that the net has corrupted the human brain's way of attaining(essays,research, book, etc). Nicholas Carr also brings up Plato's work of Phaedrus, that back then Socrates was discontent with the development of writing because of the way we as humans substitute a more convenient way for another. What's confusing is that the upbringing of Plato's work and Socrates has nothing to do with the "Internet". Theses historic figures seems to be a filler and in some way just to persuade his readers with that fact that his claim may be valid. It is also a activating reasoning for his statement because it reasons with why his statement isn't as valid regarding how the net affecting the brains limitation to reading and achieving information. Avid readers would see his argument to be very one-sided, he doesn't bring out the good points of the use of Google (Internet), etc.

Nicholas Carr has a great claim but because of his failure to linkage many of his support/evidence it can cause his claim invalid. When writing a claim and attempting to persuade it's readers there should a substantial amount of correct support that is backed up with it's linkage to the claim. Nicholas Carr begins his claim by linking it to his "friends". It's bluntly obvious that using the information from his friends can be considered bias. His use of claim, support, and linkage are not necessarily used correctly and that makes his stance invalid. But by reading his claim to Google making us stupid has brought upon a new insight that may actually be considered an issue of the following generations.

Work Cited:

The Atlantic — News and analysis on politics, business, culture, technology, national, international, and life – (The Atlantic)
Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Alantic. The Alantic, 1 August/July 2008. Web.

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