Rhetorical Analysis Paris

Rhetorical Analysis
The purpose of the article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr, is to inform the public about how the Internet is changing the way we read and take in information. The audience that this article is targeting is well-educated people around the age of thirty or forty who have a literally literary background and remember what reading was like before the Internet. Many of the sources used are professors or graduated people that have some experience or opinion on the topic of whether or not Google is changing the way we read. The genre of this article is an informational essay in order to expand the reader's knowledge on the subject that the author is concerned with. The article was written in the context of present day because this article would have no purpose if Internet was not around yet.

The author has a good topic for his paper but I found his claim to be his opinion, which most claims are, but with poor support to back it up. I was not convinced by the author’s support despite the fact that he does have a few claims with support to back it up. If not all of his claims are backed up then I’m not won over. The article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” has poor support for many claims and does not make a good argument for the author’s opinion of Google.

The catalyst that prompted the writer’s attention was “I’m not thinking the way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading.” This problem matters to the writer because he doesn’t like that the Internet is changing, or in a way reprograming, his brain. It is frustrating to have information in seconds but a result of this fast information is a negative affect on our brains. Not being able to stay focused and only feeling the urge to jump to another article could mean that becoming educated will be a more difficult task with the Internet present. This catalyst is an opinion that Nicholas Carr supports with evidence, some of it being strong support while some of it is poor support. This catalyst has the potential to set up Nicholas Carr for a good article but instead there are many areas where he does not win me over as a writer for his poor support of his claim.

I found the thesis to be, “The kind of deep reading that a sequence of printed pages promotes is valuable not just for the knowledge we acquire from the author’s words but for the intellectual vibrations those words set off within our own minds.” This thesis is long but has a good point. I believe it sums up what the author’s goal of writing this article is. The author states in his thesis that it is important to read books not only for the knowledge we could gain, but also for the way that words are absorbed into our brains without advertisements or pictures distracting us.

The author uses many sources for his support. Some of his claims have better support than others. He uses many scholars and well-educated people to support his claims. One example of good support that the author uses are his support for his claim that good is ruining our minds or essentially, making us stupid. First, he states that the mind tends to drift after a few reads. He uses himself as an example and later uses many different quotes from scholars and writers to help support his claim. Bruce Friedman states that, “I have now almost totally lost the ability to read and absorb a longish article on the web or in print.” This is good support because it backs up exactly what the author is claiming. The author also states that even when he’s not working, he is writing emails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to pod casts, or just tripping from link to link to link. This example of everyday life by the author helps us see that we use the Internet more than we think. By using all of these convenient sources to communicate and learn, we become so used to not learning by being patient and studious, but instead by cramming as much information into our brains that we don’t absorb all of the knowledge.

Although Nicholas Carr uses good support in part of it, I also found that he has holes in his argument that don’t support his claims. For an example of poor support that I found, Nicholas Carr claims, "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. He does not cite anyone or use any evidence that he found on his own to support his claim. Those three claims should have a great amount of support to pull the audience towards his way of thinking, but because of the holes in his argument, it leaves me as the reader to question his opinion even more.

One example of linkage that I found is when the author says our ability to interpret text, to make the rich mental connections that form when we read deeply and without distraction, remains largely disengaged. Earlier in the paragraph, the author cites Maryanne Wolf saying, “We are not only what we read, we are how we read.” Also Maryanne says that when we read online we become “mere decoder of information”. The last sentence of that paragraph ties together what the author is trying to say. He wants us to realize that all of the habits we have become used to are disengaging our ability to read deeply without distraction. However, I did find some flaws in Nicholas Carr’s linkage. He links his support and claims together with quotes from his “friends” which in many cases could be biased opinions that Carr himself influenced just to make his article seem more legitimate.

There can be many implications of this article because many people are behind the Internet and Google, which is basically what this article is aimed at. There could be many repercussions to this article and could in turn cause many to respond with a counter acting article claiming that Google and the internet in fact help us become more intelligent, besides the fact that we don’t read as diligently. They could claim that access to so much information couldn’t possibly make us stupid and could only advance our knowledge on unlimited topics. Also, this article is aimed directly at Google, which has many intelligent people behind it. Those who work for Google could possibly share their feelings toward the author about what they think about his article, which would all probably be negative. I’m almost positive that those who work at Google have noticed Carr’s lack of support and could easily use this to refute Carr’s argument.

On the other hand, this article could be and eye-opener to Internet users around the world if they are easily persuaded and unaware of Carr’s lack of support. This could cause many to join Nicholas Carr’s position. I’m not sure how one would go about changing how Google displaying information because of the amount of people who use Google. But this article could change how many decide to further their knowledge.

To conclude, Carr has a good claim that has potential to develop into a strong argument. However I believe that Carr should have used more valid support and not made claims that lacked support and linkage all together. His opinion of how the Internet is changing did not win me over as a reader and I didn’t agree with his views of the Internet.

Rhetorical Analysis Peer Review Paris

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