Analysis: The Argument Against Headphones
Argument Analysis for The Argument against Headphones
Virginia Heffernan who writes the article, "The Argument against Headphones", talks about headphone use in the millennial generation. She tells us that, “one in five teenagers in America can’t hear rustles or whispers…” (Heffernan, 1). She also provides us with the history of headphones, starting with their creation over 100 years ago by Nathaniel Baldwin. It ends with what we know to be modern day models. While Heffernan does use ethos, logos, and pathos, she does not use them evenly. In addition, she also uses condescending language geared towards millennials, which alienates her from the largest generation in documented history.
The condescending language is shown in her third paragraph …show more content…
This is completely irrelevant to her original argument (that the use of headphones is detrimental to teenagers) and is simply there to fill space. One could argue that Heffernan needs this history to better support her argument on the logos branch of the rhetoric tree. But simply including statistics on the danger of extended use of headphones would have sufficed. Ethos and Pathos is used in Heffernan’s article sparingly. For example Heffernan says, “maybe the danger of digital culture to young people is not that they have hummingbird attention spans but that they are going deaf”(Hefferan, X). This is an example of pathos because Heffernan uses specific language that incites an emotional response. Hefferan also uses ethos when she concedes headphones are useful for people who, “…don’t want their sounds overheard” (Heffernan, 3). However, this is one of the only instances where she uses Ethos.
Heffernan’s article writes for a different audience. She aims for the ‘concerned parent’/ ‘baby boomer’ demographic and not for younger generation. If she intends to reach all people, or at least a broader generational spectrum, her use of language is not appropriate. Even though she uses all branches of rhetoric her overuse of logos, and insufficient use of ethos and pathos, turns off part of her audience. Overall, her argument is most likely effective with her
Virginia Heffernan who writes the article, "The Argument against Headphones", talks about headphone use in the millennial generation. She tells us that, “one in five teenagers in America can’t hear rustles or whispers…” (Heffernan, 1). She also provides us with the history of headphones, starting with their creation over 100 years ago by Nathaniel Baldwin. It ends with what we know to be modern day models. While Heffernan does use ethos, logos, and pathos, she does not use them evenly. In addition, she also uses condescending language geared towards millennials, which alienates her from the largest generation in documented history.
The condescending language is shown in her third paragraph …show more content…
This is completely irrelevant to her original argument (that the use of headphones is detrimental to teenagers) and is simply there to fill space. One could argue that Heffernan needs this history to better support her argument on the logos branch of the rhetoric tree. But simply including statistics on the danger of extended use of headphones would have sufficed. Ethos and Pathos is used in Heffernan’s article sparingly. For example Heffernan says, “maybe the danger of digital culture to young people is not that they have hummingbird attention spans but that they are going deaf”(Hefferan, X). This is an example of pathos because Heffernan uses specific language that incites an emotional response. Hefferan also uses ethos when she concedes headphones are useful for people who, “…don’t want their sounds overheard” (Heffernan, 3). However, this is one of the only instances where she uses Ethos.
Heffernan’s article writes for a different audience. She aims for the ‘concerned parent’/ ‘baby boomer’ demographic and not for younger generation. If she intends to reach all people, or at least a broader generational spectrum, her use of language is not appropriate. Even though she uses all branches of rhetoric her overuse of logos, and insufficient use of ethos and pathos, turns off part of her audience. Overall, her argument is most likely effective with her