Distraction and Parental Influence

Can Cultural Icons Overshadow Parental Influence? Cynthia Tucker, in her essay “Barbie Madness”, implies that parents will always have more influence over their children over any popular cultural icons. This is partially true. Because the influence from parents would affect their children when these parents are involved in their children’s daily life. For example, the NIMH pointed out that if a child's home life was surrounded by cruelly rejection from parents, aggressive violent behavior, it put children at risk for becoming violent later in life. On the contrary, since not all parents are unperceptive and not involved, parental influence would, to some extent, help to shape and support children by providing a safe environment, adequate supervision, and education throughout their dependent years. In a family, children attain their first experiences in life, so parental influence will become an irreplaceable and important element affecting their emotional health. Therefore, in a well-functioning family, children can receive support, come to feel loved, valued, and competent which will shape and impact them in a positive way. In conclusion, Cynthia Tucker’s argument is partially true.

Texting Distracts Us from Daily Work
Matthew Zellmer, in his essay "Texting: A Blessing or Curse?" argues that texting distracts us from daily work. Zellmer poorly supported his claim with evidence in his essay by telling the story of one student and some talks he had with his teacher friends. While he indicated that texting is distracting, he was assuming that no one can survive from distracted by texting. Although the story and these talks do help to prove that students could be distracted by texting, still, there are plenty of data supporting not everyone would be distracted by messages, which means Zellmer's theory apparently has gone to extremes. For instance, when doctors were in a surgery, he/she will obviously not be able to carry his mobile. Therefore, the doctor will