Critique on Kris's essay

This paper has some great points with what I feel are pretty strong arguments as well as having some arguments that may need some work. Starting with the introduction paragraph, the first thing that caught my eye was the first sentence. It sounds as though you are using a circular argument. As far as what I interpreted from it, it sounds like, “The things people don’t notice are what they don’t notice.” I’m sure there is method behind this but it started me off a bit confused. On the other hand I feel like the intro paragraph does a good job of establishing the controversy with some good currency. Some of the claims in the sentences may be a bit on the strong side, so I wanted to suggest a really good tactic to clean them up. It’s called “hedging.” Basically you would want to sort of “step back a bit from your claim to imply the possibility of your argument rather than the matter-of-factness. For example: rather than starting off by saying “People aren’t noticing our lack of personality due to technology”, you might say “Technology may be affecting parts of our personality that we aren’t realizing.” This way you are proposing a suggestive idea that you will later stand by with conviction in your later paragraphs after establishing good evidence. Also, it doesn’t seem too clear exactly where your thesis is or what exactly your central argument is. If I had to guess, it would be “Technology is posing a threat to our social interactions and, thus, creates issues for expression of our personalities...” Maybe you can somehow incorporate that into your intro paragraph toward the end. With these suggestions I feel like you would have a solid first paragraph.

I think you did a great job with the argument where you discuss how technology is depriving emotions. Although the claim may be a bit strong, you back up the argument with a lot of good hypothetical situations where people could be lied to through texting or facebook. I think this the most convincing part of your paper.

Another suggestion I have for this paper is how you talk about personality. Usually when I think of that word or read it I associate it with the all-encompassing aspects of a person’s psyche and behavior. I see that when you use the word in your paper you are referring to just the parts that have to do with either the freedom to choose something or navigating around the world. I suggest maybe establishing an arbitrary definition to the reader before you argue that it’s being affected. You could maybe say, “…among the intricacies and complexities of our personalities, certain parts of them are particularly vulnerable to various technological advancements, such as…..” I feel that if you establish what exactly you mean by “personality,” your reader may be more inclined to follow your argument.

Lastly, you bring a good refutation paragraph with the counter argument, however, I feel that it may be too general or broad. I suggest maybe using a concrete example of an instance where a consequence does not outweigh the benefits. Maybe something like, “people argue that misuse of social networking websites are giving the websites a bad rap and not the websites themselves. Those that are negatively affected pertain to a small crowd so the benefits may seem to outweigh the consequences. But what about when someone commits suicide over facebook because her friend (actually her friend’s mom) pushes her to kill herself? That seems like a consequence that outweighs any benefit.” That would tie into the pathos of rhetoric argument and very closely applies to your claim about people lying over facebook or, rather, things not being what they seem.

Overall, this essay has a huge amount of great ideas with good anecdotal evidence. Some arguments may be a littler weaker than others, but I feel like my suggestions might strengthen them up a bit. 

Feel free to tear mine apart too please! Thanks