Stop Multitasking Rhetorical Analysis
The two pieces How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking and In Defense of Multitasking but give the reader something to think about. One presents an argument against multitasking while the other defends it. The two authors have different, and distinctive, writing styles. They also provide varying amounts of support for their argument. With these differences, the only similarity seems to be what the essays discuss.
In the first essay, How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking, the author presents a case against multitasking. The author starts by telling the reader about a past experience with multitasking. He goes on to describe how he had to send three emails in order to convey his message to a client because he was distracted on the phone at the same …show more content…
Similar to the previous essay, this piece includes many examples to support the author's argument. The author also starts by acknowledging the opposing view by stating "HBR.org blogger Peter Bregman recently made some excellent points about the downside of multitasking -- as did Matt Richtel in his New York Times article on Monday."(537) This statement shows the reader that the author has atleast thought about the opposing view rather than ignoring it, which seems to be the case in the first essay. Also unlike the previous essay, the author refrains from using too much colloquial language. He provides good support for his argument with examples that are readily visualized by the reader. One such example is that multitasking is "crucial to survival in today's workplace." (537) The author illustrates this by providing the example of "[t]he higher up you are in the organization,m the more important multitasking is." (539) He states that "[t]he fewer things you have to do, the more you should concentrate on them." and conversely a logical extreme, "[d]oes Barak Obama get to unitask?... Or does he have to keep doing his job while handling whatever spilled milk comes his way?" (539) This is a very good example of how the author provides support for his view on the topic as well as the acknowledging the opposing view. Overall, this essay seems to be the more
In the first essay, How (and Why) to Stop Multitasking, the author presents a case against multitasking. The author starts by telling the reader about a past experience with multitasking. He goes on to describe how he had to send three emails in order to convey his message to a client because he was distracted on the phone at the same …show more content…
Similar to the previous essay, this piece includes many examples to support the author's argument. The author also starts by acknowledging the opposing view by stating "HBR.org blogger Peter Bregman recently made some excellent points about the downside of multitasking -- as did Matt Richtel in his New York Times article on Monday."(537) This statement shows the reader that the author has atleast thought about the opposing view rather than ignoring it, which seems to be the case in the first essay. Also unlike the previous essay, the author refrains from using too much colloquial language. He provides good support for his argument with examples that are readily visualized by the reader. One such example is that multitasking is "crucial to survival in today's workplace." (537) The author illustrates this by providing the example of "[t]he higher up you are in the organization,m the more important multitasking is." (539) He states that "[t]he fewer things you have to do, the more you should concentrate on them." and conversely a logical extreme, "[d]oes Barak Obama get to unitask?... Or does he have to keep doing his job while handling whatever spilled milk comes his way?" (539) This is a very good example of how the author provides support for his view on the topic as well as the acknowledging the opposing view. Overall, this essay seems to be the more