1. Are there two-or more- different points of view on the subject? do all sides make clear what they are trying to prove? Summarize their claims.
A: Their is only one point of view for the subject that social networks is unhealthy for people and it have a long term affect that first change the ways we interact then change who we are. The author makes very clear for what he is trying to prove with a lot of examples, cites, and analysis. David claims that the growing of social networks is too fast, make user lonelier, and addicted, but beside that social network help adolescent boot up their self-esteem by study what other people do.
2. Do all side share the same goal? if not, how they are different?
A: since their is only one side, so I have no answer for this.
3. How important is definition of key terms? do all sides agree on the definitions? if so, what are they? if not, how they differ? does definition become a significant issue in the controversy?
A: questions are not applicable
4. How important is evident support of the claims? does the support fulfill the appropriate criteria? if not, what are its weaknesses? do the authorities have convincing credential?
A: The support of the claims is very important because it show that the author claims something that basic on a serious and effective study of scientists. The support fulfill the appropriate criteria. I don't think the author convincing credential, but he convincing people that should be aware of what they are doing with social networks, it is unhealthy even though it helps in many aspects of life.
5. Do the arguers base any part of their argument on needs and values that their readers are expected to share? what are they? do the arguers provide examples of the ways these values function? is there a a conflict of values? if so, which seem more important?
A: I think that the arguer have one part that base on the value that social network help people to boot up their self-esteem. Something that I think the reader share is that the amount of time that users spend for social network and how addicted is it. Yes the arguer provide a lot example for that. I don't see any conflict in his values.
6. What warrant or assumption underlie the claims? Are they implicit or explicit? Do the arguers examine them for the reader? are the warrants acceptable? if not, point out their weaknesses?
A: I think their is one warrant for his claim is that people will be more and more relied on the internet that they will later be control by the internet, because he argue that the need of internet and social networking is increase rapidly and the distinction between online and offline seem to be disappear. It is explicit since he give example and say very clear about it. He also examine them for the reader and I think the warrants acceptable.
7. What is the main issue? is there a genuine debate- that is, does each side try to respond to arguments on the other side.
A: the main issue for this article is that the problems of people using social networks. The author is addressing his point of view and their is no respond to his argument as a genuine debate.
8.Do the arguers propose solutions to the problem? are the advantages other their proposals clear? are there obvious disadvantage?
A: he does propose any solution for the problem, so their is no advantages and disadvantages.
9. Does each argument follow a clear and orderly organization, one that lends itself to a good outline? if not, what are the weakness?
A: the argument follow very clear and orderly organization since the author give a thoroughly view of what is the current social network status and how fast it growth to what the problem it created like more loneliness and addiction.
10. Does language play a part in the argument? are their any examples of misuse of language- slanted or loaded words, cliches, slogans.
A: language is a big part of how effective is the argument, it help aid the reader to follow the argument in each claims. There is loaded word such as vigorously or flower of banality.
11. Do the arguers show an awareness of audience? how would you describe the audiences from whom the various arguments are present?
A: I think the arguer should awareness of audience since he point out specifically right before he start his article. He asked that think about the type of people who use the social network? I think he is very aware of who is his main reader. For me, the audience is everyone, the main one should be people who use social network as a daily activity.
12. Do you think that one side won the argument? can you find examples of negotiation and compromise, of attempts to establish a common ground? explain your answer in detail.
A: the is only one side, so there is no win or loose.
No comments:
Post a Comment