Naughton Thesis Statement

Sometimes one can never realize that what they are doing is wrong, at least until the consequences are revealed to them in the end. A happy ending does not always have to have a good event such as a marriage or happy-ever-after but it can be considered a good ending when a character or characters has gone through moral development. In The Crucible, Arthur Miller uses rhetorical devices such as logos, ethos and anaphora to provide moral reconciliation for John and Elizabeth Proctor, revealing the consequences through one's actions can spark a realization of wrongdoing.

Within Twenge’s argument she consistently uses pathos, ethos, and logos. When talking to Athena, a 13-year-old girl who lives in Houston, Texas, about how smartphones have affected her life directly Twenge consistently employs pathos. They discuss her favorite songs, TV shows, and what activities she enjoys with her friends. Relating back to emotion, Twenge remembers from her own days where she would “enjoy a few parents- free hours shopping with her [my] her friends.” Athena admits “ It kind of hurts” when she is with her friends “and they don’t actually look at my [her] face.” Even with no parental supervision, technology still takes away from interactions of friends. Twenge’s research on the iGeneration has shown that this generation is

In the short play A Raisin in the sun conflict’s both internal and external occure for in three of the main characters regarding their dreams. When the opportunity came for them to accomplish their dreams through using the insurance money they’ve come across from the loss of a family member, one of the main characters, Walter, wishes to be successful in life; but he needs the insurance money to do so. He wants to use the insurance money to open up a liquor store because he believes this would change his life. A exceptional quote that shows his determination to be successful in life is when he speaks to Ruth “You tired, ain’t you? Tired of everything. Me, the boy. The way we live-this beat up hole-everything”(

The Author uses the evidence of a personal experience, research on the subject, and Marcus Arnold. The Author first uses his personal experience to state his point that the internet is a bad place for adolescents. He starts this by explaining about how his crushes father was a man who "struck terror into the hearts of 15-year-old boys". He then uses more information to get to his personal experience with her father and how he gained some level of respect from him. He pushes his point in saying he didn't use the internet, but if he had to go through the same scenario again today, he probably would have. In his next point the author uses research from scientist and institutes to move his point another step further. He starts off by stating his

Carr makes his case by using his own personal experience at the beginning of the argument. Using his own personal experience with internet has helped to reinforce a solid argument. This anecdotal evidence is also used to make a convincing argument. He uses names of individuals and experts’ opinions to illustrate that other persons had the same experience and also feel the same way about the internet. These testimonial evidence makes the argument more credible. The use of historical evidence strengthens his argument based on the fact that some of examples are actually occurring today. This allows the readers to stand on the author’s side of reasoning. Carr also uses factual information about the company of google to convince the readers that

Nicholas Carr, posed the question, “Is Google making us stupid”, and asks his readers to give it some thought. The article made suggestions such as the internet changing the way the mind works and that the internet has negative consequences on the human brain. Carr wants everyone to be cautious of the internet because of the many different ways it has affected and will continue to affect the way we think. When I think about this article, I can see the many different tactics Carr used, such as fact vs fiction, cause and effect, and the clearly stated argument.

Nicholas Carr covers an unprecedented amount of material in his novel, “The Shallows.” He delves into subjects ranging from the history of the book to the business of Google to the psychological concept of neuroplasticity. All of these topics support his main argument: the idea that the internet is destroying our brains. He takes the deterministic approach that we are the tools we use, meaning they shape our brains. According to Carr, the internet negates our memories, deems print books useless, and distracts us from reality. His counterargument comes from the instrumentalist approach; this viewpoint maintains that people stay the same no matter the tools they use. His arguments are both sound and flimsy, current and outdated, and he rants

The Internet is something that some consider their lifesavers, while others believe that it takes their life away. The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, by Nicholas Carr is a novel that explores the different areas of how new technologies affect humans in different ways, regarding multi-tasking and distractions, to how new technologies make us lose a little part of ourselves. Throughout the book Carr puts forward very strong arguments, but then loses creditability with his use of fallacies in argument.

The internet has made an immense impact on every generation since its existence as it continues to grow throughout time. Its effectiveness is prodigious; the internet allows people to gain information that once took days to retrieve it in a few minutes (Carr 1). Writer Nicholas Carr, in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, explains that the use of internet and technology causes harm to people and their brains. Carr’s purpose is to address to internet users that Google (or any electronic helpers) is making them “stupid” and lazy because it minimizes their concentration and willingness to think. He attempts to adapt to his audience, dedicated internet users, as he uses the rhetorical appeals to try to convince them of his purpose. However, this was not enough. Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” is ineffective because of his poor use of ethos and logos despite his good use of pathos.

The first chapter introduced the reader to the art of rhetoric. He describes how rhetoric works through real life examples. He demonstrates ways that rhetoric persuades us like, argument from strength, and seduction. He tells the reader that the sole purpose of arguing is to persuade the audience. He showed that the chief purpose of arguing is to also achieve consensus, a shared faith in a choice.

The author 's tone changes in paragraph 4 when Carr talks about how the Internet has altered his mind by crumbling away at how much he can concrete. When Carr states “For me, as for others, the Net is becoming a universal medium” in paragraph four the author provides his counter argument which is to warn the incoming generations the dangers of the Internet before his main argument. Which is that the Internet is making us stupid and is altering how we think, by doing this it allows Carr to spend the rest of the article refuting his main argument.

The author then noted the positive ways the Internet has influenced his life. yet, when he states, “But that boon comes at a price,” his tone immediately changes from appreciative to concerned. This change in tone shows that Carr is beginning to dive deeper into his topic. Additionally, his positive section acts as a counterargument.

As Carr continues, he speaks of his extended use of the internet over the last decade, explaining that all information that he once painstakingly searched for is done in minutes with the use of search engines. In doing this, Carr places blame on the internet for breaking his ability to concentrate. Carr presents his arguments in a way that his readers could easily agree. He gradually works up to the idea that the internet has weakened his ability to focus, and as he does this he makes several general statements about the internet’s nature. These points on the net’s nature are so basic that any reader of his article would be inclined to agree with them, and this lends itself to help readers believe the argument Carr wishes to propose. Because it would be hard to provide factual evidence to support his claims, Carr effectively uses logical reasoning to convince the reader.

The internet is an excellent place to explore our mind and put our thoughts together; however, it also has a negative effect to our brains, and the more we use it the more it decrease our intelligence. In this essay “Does the Internet Make You Smarter or Dumber?” by Nicholas Carr, he argues about the immoral side of the internet. According to Carr, “When we’re constantly distracted and interrupted, as we tend to be online, our brains are unable to forge the strong and expansive neural connections that give depth and distinctiveness to our thinking” (22). Carr’s pint of view about the internet is that it does not make us smarter in any way; if anything it make us dense and slow. Scientific study have shown that most people who stayed on the internet quit a lot are more likely to damage their brains mentally. According to Carr, the internet is also a place to waste our time. Carr backed up his arguments with studies from scientists, researches and even books. In these essay, Carr’s appeals to logic and understanding is the strongest; whereas his appeals to ethos and his appeals to pathos are finite.

Further neuroscience research shows that extensive use of the internet may physically be changing our brains. Our minds adapt to new ideas and concept everyday and when introduced to a new task or job, our brains change as “new neural pathways that give instructions to our bodies” (“What…Plasticity?”) open up. Brain plasticity, “the capacity of the brain to change with learning” (Michelon) can occur at any age and is responsible for instructing our brains to perform a task. New neural wires are created when you learn something new, but those same connections can also be destroyed, for instance when you forget a person’s name, signaling the failing of a person’s memory (“What…Plasticity?”). The more time spent on the Internet, the more our brains grow more accustomed to processing simplified snippets of information very quickly, and because Internet articles become easier to read and skim over, it appeals more to the mind than denser and longer printed text.