This article starts off with the author, Deborah Netburn, using a casual and ordinary diction, similar to one you'd have in an everyday conversation, but as she starts to make her point her diction switches to a formal and academic diction. Her diction then switches back to casual as she makes her final remarks. While reading, it was obvious that Netburn did not have an emotional connection to the words she was using, as it was primarily fact based with no extra in sight.
Overall, Netburn used Logos to prove her point, which is obvious because she starts throwing facts all over the place so that her claim is apparent. Netburn wants to be straight forward with her argument so she can convince her audience to agree. The tone the author uses is boring. I opened this article expecting to be intrigued based off of the title, but I began reading it and could not stay focused on the article. She basically said "The scientists did this and this is what happened, the end" There was nothing there to keep the audience engaged. The author's purpose was to use the facts she obtained from the scientists and prove that it is not our fault if we are addicted to technology and that we should blame our genes. The scientists were able to prove that genetic differences make a difference in how much time kids spend online. Netburn introduces her topic by simply asking her audience about social media, it was a good way to hook the audience, but then she just started throwing facts around and did not keep the audience engaged which can cause people to ignore her claim. That is when her argument was weak, because you can’t just throw facts without analyzing them and giving feedback. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-online-media-genes-20170123-story.html
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2017
Categories |