While Google can be convenient if you need a quick answer or need to find information at a moment’s notice. , People should not be using google as an easy way out to answer questions because the students knowing this can also use this search engine to cheat on test so they can avoid retaining information. The students of today also do not have a sense of working for their own academic goals, and this is a problem because the students of this generation do not have to think or brainstorm on anything.
The article is Google making us stupid is effective because the author gives multiple detailed examples on both sides of the matter. The author of is google making us stupid comes out of the gate with a very relatable quote to the subject. The quote is “Dave my mind is going,” HAL says, forlornly. “I can feel it. I can feel it” (Carr 1). The author using this quote signifies that the author is firmly putting his foot down on the side he plans to take on the article. That quote plays well with the readers who have seen space odyssey such as myself understand the quote and its value to the argument.
Then he continues to state how it plays into his life and how author interprets google affecting everyday life. The author states in the article “My mind is not going-so far as I can tell-but it is changing” (Carr 1). What my understanding of the sentence is the author is trying to say that he cannot submerse himself into the deep thought readings that he once enjoyed. The author and myself have what seems to be the same problems now a days with all devices that read the books to you our just googling it as my generation says to avoid earning the answer the right way.
The author also stated in the article the author points out another clear problem with today’s generation “My concentration starts to drift after two or three pages. “I get fidgety, lose thread, and begin looking for something else to do” (Carr 1). As the author states on how he becomes off subject so easy no a days. This statement is very true and using myself as an example surely say the author said is true because it happens to me quite frequently. Those examples listed above are what the author used as his foundation of his argument.
How the author manages to compare his argument to everyday life really captures what modern day technology is doing to the people of this era. He also does a great job of tying problems of today growing from google and the convenience of using it. Then he goes and describes how this new technology benefits him as a writer and a person but also how people become so reliant on this technology. In the article he writes “Research that once required days can now be done it minutes” (Carr 1). By adding little bits like these in his article he still is managing to voice both sides of the argument.
Later in the paragraph he shifts back to withholding his argument by saying “Unlike footnotes, to which they are sometimes linked, hyperlinks don’t merely point to related works; they propel you toward them” (Carr 1). Using this he is going back to a point earlier in the story were he explained how getting side tracked is a problem and now by saying this he is pointing that the websites you use help push you away from what you were doing. In third paragraph the author brings another voice into the matter and that is Marshall McLuhan.
This was a smart move by the author to choose this person to back his argument. The reason why Mr. McLuhan is was a good choice is his work is viewed as one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory, as well as having practical applications in the advertising and television industry in the 1960’s and after reading about he was well ahead of his time when it came to the possibility of the internet. The article states “My mind expects to take information the way distributes it” (Carr 1).
The fourth paragraph includes the author restating his point of people losing concentration while reading. He does this by bringing in his friends saying that they suffer from the same problems when comes to reading. Midway into the paragraph he brings in Scott Karp to help address the matter of having trouble focusing. In spite of him having a blog a common media problem the author could have found a better backing source than this one. The next paragraph includes the input of a man named Bruce Friedman a blogger about the use of computers in medicine.
Bruce states that he has also lost his ability to read and absorb prolonged stories or articles. This paragraph also includes a pathologist from Michigan Medical School and even this person admits to losing the ability to focus while reading long pieces of information and also admitted to skimming most of his reads now a days due to how the internet has changed him. These sources are better than previous because of their positions and field the only problem they are still not directly linked to the argument.
Example being the pathologist is random ads on that has no business being in this subject even know he has a fancy title. It also does not help that the author does not include the name of the pathologist so the readers can not validate his input to the argument. The author now brings in a recent study conducted by scholars from the University College London. The research was conducted over a five year span using two popular research sites. Their studies showed that readers would only commit to one or two pages out of some form of literature before they would go to another site.
The report they produced stated “It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense; indeed there are signs that new forms of “reading” are emerging as user “power browse” horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense” (Carr 2). To this point in the article this author’s heavyweight so to speak backing of his argument due to the qualifications the school and how thorough the research was conducted.
To this point people can start to comprehend the problem because of the Carr brings examples to every new point to the argument this helps continue to strengthen his ideas about the topic at hand. On page 3 Carr brings another well qualified speaker into the argument Maryanne Wolf. Her background includes being a developmental psychologist at Tufts University and the author of Proust and the Squid. She states “We are how we read. The style of reading prompted by the net, a style that puts efficiency and immediacy above all else, may be weakening our capacity for deep reading” (Carr 3).
At this point into my evaluation of this article a pattern appeared for all of his add in speakers. For me this was a problem because his argument now appeared repetitive. What this meant for me as the evaluator is that the author was using same old argument that he had been using through this entire article and it was getting old. If wanted to attract more attention if it was up to me you be needing to use a different argument at this point cause already validated the first one all ready.
