This obsession has been dragging us to spend more time in front Of an electronic device instead Of having face-to-face communication. In my opinion, the authors claim is a blend because even though she gave relevant sources from a professor of Psychology and two Neurologists; she could have made use other kinds of sources and data such as statistics and human facts. Hoofed states that technology has been controlling us. People use their electronic device to look for random information even though they do not deed it or they do not need to know about it.
Hoofed gives us an example of a woman who became addicted to check her phone all the time looking for a famous person problems and refresh this person’s website many times to see if there is new information about it. Another example that Hoofed uses is a research made by Ken Bridge, psychology professor at the University of Michigan, in which he states that mammal’s brain works with stimulation in order to make actions. However, humans brain is rather stimulated than testified.
Basically, Bridge is making a comparison between animals and humans reaction of stimulus. Also, Bridge stated that when people receives a text message and the device starts to vibrate, it is a signal of having some new information waiting in the phone, so people react and respond making us want more of it and keep doing it. In this essay Hoofed has a lack of evidence such as statistics, human facts and more detailed information about the experiments she used as main sources.
By showing statistics, people can et more creditability about this research and about any argument that she makes because it is a number; for instance, it cannot be ambiguous and must be reported accurately. People could have a better understanding and provide excellent support of this research if they have fair arguments. Hoofed did not mention specific data about people who became addicted to media technology, instead, her argument was based on research made to mammals which obviously do not react or behave the same way as humans.
Every person is a different world. Hoofed could have expressed this by saying “most of the people” or “some people”, but she generalized by saying “we” in this context. Hoofed used ethos as a type of appeal because she shows creditable sources in order to convince people based on their reactions to technology. However, Hoofed did not present a deep explanation of expert’s experiment because these experiments were focused on animals and not humans. Hoofed never talks about the opposite site and the advantages of new media technology.