Analysis of a Poor Rhetoric
A Poor Rhetoric代写 Logical Fallacies in the Times Magazine’s “Technology Hoax” ArticleTechnology in the classroom is not by itself a silver bullet.
Logical Fallacies in the Times Magazine’s “Technology Hoax” Article A Poor Rhetoric代写
Technology in the classroom is not by itself a silver bullet. It cannot alone increase the engagement or student empowerment that can lead to both academic and life success. An article in the Times Magazine that the portrays technology being harmful to the students is both irrational and biased in the argument. Technology is like other learning tools in the learning process can be either useful or harmful to the learner depending on how it is applied with a connection to facilitating the learning.A Poor Rhetoric代写**成品
With the modern technology growing exponentially, it is not going away as it will remain part of the human life. Therefore, people have the choice to run from it or leverage it in practice.
The article was released on August 31st, 2016 during the period when the schools were reopening for the new year.
The article “Screen in Schools is a $60 Billion Hoax,” was written by the Dr. Kardaras who is a columnist in the Times Magazine. The article is a complete misrepresentation about the technology and represents it as an awful thing to the learners at all times that it is implemented by the naive tutors and administrators who have no idea about it. The technology has no benefit to learning and that it is an implementation of the big companies’ idea for financial gains.
Therefore A Poor Rhetoric代写
The article is both irrational and full of rhetorical errors which aim to support the case against the use of technology in schools. One of the logical fallacies used the author says. “The screen revolution has seen pedagogy undergo a seismic shift as technology now dominates the educational landscape. In almost every classroom in America…smartboards, Chromebooks, tablets, smartphones.A Poor Rhetoric代写**成品
From inner-city schools to those in rural and remote towns….” (Kardaras par. 2). This is an example of strawman logical fallacy. The author misrepresents someone’s argument for an easy approach to attacking the technology in schools. Through exaggeration, misrepresentation, or fabrication of the school’s argument, the author was able to present his case and position as being rational.
The author also false cause in making his Argument. A Poor Rhetoric代写
He said that, “Tech in the classroom not only leads to worse educational outcomes for kids, … clinically hurt them…screen addiction, increased aggression, depression, anxiety, and even psychosis.” (Kardaras par. 3). Here the author presumed that there is a relationship between technology, educational outcome, and health of the learners. According to his argument, technology causes poor education outcomes and hurt the health of the learners.
Argument A Poor Rhetoric代写
The article further losses its authority when the author uses anecdotal in making his argument as real and valid. He wrote that, “Education technology is estimated to become a $60 billion industry by 2018. With the advent of the Common Core in 2010, … This new Gold Rush attracted people like Rupert Murdoch …Their solution: Educate them in a more stimulating and “engaging” manner.” (Kardaras par. 4). It is easier for people to believe personal experiences over research which are complicated to understand based on the data. In making a scientific claim, use of scientific measures is accurate and convincing than giving subjective opinion and experiences.A Poor Rhetoric代写**成品
However, people are inclined to believe what they can fathom from the person they can trust rather than scientific abstractions of statistical information. The whole of this statement is based on a personal opinion from isolated examples which fail to bring a rational argument. Stating that education technology becoming a $60 billion industry is an unsubstantiated claim that is not rational.A Poor Rhetoric代写**成品
To make the argument valid, the author could have cited valid research which found it to be true. The claim that the industry will attract people like Rupert Murdoch is an irrational assumption which provided no ground on which such characters may be interested in the industry. Also, it is not logical to assume that such a person will join the bandwagon by virtue of it being a gold mine.
The author also assumed part of his argument to apply all the other parts in his case. A Poor Rhetoric代写
His claim forms a part of compositional fallacy in reasoning. He said that, “But let’s look more closely at that claim. ADHD rates have indeed exploded by 50 percent over … The more a child is stimulated, the more that child needs to keep getting stimulated to hold their attention.” (Kardaras par. 7). Although it is often that when one thing is true for the part of the whole, by implication, it applies to the whole, however, there must be clear evidence to show prove the case. In the absence of evidence, the assumption becomes logically wrong thus called composition fallacy.
Manipulate the emotional A Poor Rhetoric代写
The writer also seeks to appeal to the emotions by trying to manipulate the emotional response in place of a valid and compelling argument. In so doing the writer said that, “Despite the Amplify and LA debacles, … Do any of these hypnotic marvels of the digital age actually produce better educational outcomes for the kids who use them?” (Kardaras par. 9).A Poor Rhetoric代写**成品
In the quote, the author tried to appeal to the audience through fear and pity. The problem with his argument is that is that it is using emotions instead of the logical argument. Here, the writer also tried to veil the fact that no persuasive rational reason exists for the use of technology. He was trying to compare laying off of teachers and buying of technology to obscure the need for technology.A Poor Rhetoric代写**成品
The article by Kardaras is filled with rhetorical errors, which makes it not to qualify as a credible academic source of reference. The author has failed to use logical reasoning by using logical fallacies to disguise his irrational arguments. The article could have been better if it used the scientifically proven sources to substantiate their case.
Work Cited A Poor Rhetoric代写
Kardaras, Nicholas. “Screens In Schools Are A $60 Billion Hoax”. Time, 2016, http://time.com/4474496/screens-schools-hoax/. Accessed 12 Dec 2018.