Internet Addiction Essay
Assignment 2.1 1. Does the rhetoric address the problem it claims to address?
Yes, but in my opinion Mr. Beato was a bit extreme. 2. Is the rhetoric targeted at an audience who has the power to make change?
Probably, because most audience are internet users, and by seeing this it could be a red flag for them to slow down. 3. Are the appeals appropriate to the audience?
Yes, and no. I felt that Mr. Beato giving the percentage of addicts was appropriate, because it was a statistic that is probably accurate. When he starting giving possible scenarios such as “Where employees who view porn at work are legally protected from termination.” I felt like it was just too big of stretch in my opinion. Maybe that is because I could never see that being a reality at the work place. I also thought his view of video game violence could have been left out. 4. Does the rhetor give enough information to make an informed decision?
If statistics scare you then yes maybe. I can’t see Mr. Beato’s extreme scenarios scaring addicts to quit checking their status, and making tweets. Either way any addict isn’t going to quit their substance due to an article. I believe they have to really want to quit. 5. Does the rhetoric attempt to manipulate in any way (by giving incomplete/inaccurate information or abusing the audience’s emotions)?
I am not sure if the statistical information Mr. Beato provided was accurate, but I think the entire last paragraph was intended to mess with the audience’s emotions. The whole dark parody from 95’ becoming a true nightmare had to be in there to try and scare the audience into changing, but I doubt it really worked on anyone. 6. What other sub-claims do you have to accept to understand the rhetor’s main claim?
All of the statistics and research Mr. Beato brought up, the councilman with Farmville (that was great), the iPhone camera app that shows you the world while you can text, and walk is just ridiculous, the 18 year old who became a
Yes, but in my opinion Mr. Beato was a bit extreme. 2. Is the rhetoric targeted at an audience who has the power to make change?
Probably, because most audience are internet users, and by seeing this it could be a red flag for them to slow down. 3. Are the appeals appropriate to the audience?
Yes, and no. I felt that Mr. Beato giving the percentage of addicts was appropriate, because it was a statistic that is probably accurate. When he starting giving possible scenarios such as “Where employees who view porn at work are legally protected from termination.” I felt like it was just too big of stretch in my opinion. Maybe that is because I could never see that being a reality at the work place. I also thought his view of video game violence could have been left out. 4. Does the rhetor give enough information to make an informed decision?
If statistics scare you then yes maybe. I can’t see Mr. Beato’s extreme scenarios scaring addicts to quit checking their status, and making tweets. Either way any addict isn’t going to quit their substance due to an article. I believe they have to really want to quit. 5. Does the rhetoric attempt to manipulate in any way (by giving incomplete/inaccurate information or abusing the audience’s emotions)?
I am not sure if the statistical information Mr. Beato provided was accurate, but I think the entire last paragraph was intended to mess with the audience’s emotions. The whole dark parody from 95’ becoming a true nightmare had to be in there to try and scare the audience into changing, but I doubt it really worked on anyone. 6. What other sub-claims do you have to accept to understand the rhetor’s main claim?
All of the statistics and research Mr. Beato brought up, the councilman with Farmville (that was great), the iPhone camera app that shows you the world while you can text, and walk is just ridiculous, the 18 year old who became a