In Mark Griffiths’ article, “Online Video Gaming: What should Educational Psychologists know?” he creates a detailed account suggesting to parents, teachers, and psychologists that they need not be concerned with adolescents supposed ‘addiction’ to online video games. The article delivers a summary of the foremost concerns surrounding excessive video gaming among adolescents and delivers a persuasive argument on the positive perceptions of online video gaming. Griffiths uses a plethora of rhetoric to persuade the reader, mostly relying upon ethical arguments, manipulating the audience's perception of the rhetor's perpetual education and experience on online gaming addictions. However, his argument is not limited to ethos. Logos are presented
…show more content…
He uses an extrinsic approach in “Online Video Gaming” where he states his “two decades of knowledge” in researching video gaming. Griffiths does not need to establish who he is, he can assume that his audience will listen, if not wholeheartedly embrace his ideas, after he states his expertise on addiction. Conversely, he continuously references himself—there isn’t a single article reference that doesn’t include him as one of the authors, sometimes the only author. This lack of outside references and research creates a lack of credibility, making the article appear bias. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain corrections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. Griffiths is also guilty of this himself, in his work dating before 2000, he talks about the negative effects of video game addiction, increased aggressiveness, and the various medical and psychosocial …show more content…
Within the article Griffith’s contradicts himself, making his use of logos appear weak, since there are holes in the facts. He changes the components of addiction in the article from “featuring all of the behavior” to “fulfilling the six criteria” of addiction and this leaves the audience in a state of confusion. Griffiths needs to be consistent with his facts if he is to utilize logos affectively. Unsubstantiated facts are given throughout the article, all which if further research is taken can be debunked effortlessly. An illustration of this is when Griffiths declares the he “has only come across a handful of genuine gaming addicts in over his two decades.” In the article Excessive Computer Gaming data revealed 11.9% of participants fulfilled diagnostic criteria of addiction concerning their gaming behaviour and were truly addicted. Also, it is important to note Griffiths partook in this article, which means he not only contradicts himself once, but on numerous occasions. He may have not given an exact number in his claim on adolescence being truly addicted to gaming; however, he persuades the reader to believe that gaming is harmless, and the numbers of participants who are truly addicted are close to
He uses an extrinsic approach in “Online Video Gaming” where he states his “two decades of knowledge” in researching video gaming. Griffiths does not need to establish who he is, he can assume that his audience will listen, if not wholeheartedly embrace his ideas, after he states his expertise on addiction. Conversely, he continuously references himself—there isn’t a single article reference that doesn’t include him as one of the authors, sometimes the only author. This lack of outside references and research creates a lack of credibility, making the article appear bias. All scholarly journals and newspapers contain corrections in which they acknowledge errors in their prior work. Griffiths is also guilty of this himself, in his work dating before 2000, he talks about the negative effects of video game addiction, increased aggressiveness, and the various medical and psychosocial …show more content…
Within the article Griffith’s contradicts himself, making his use of logos appear weak, since there are holes in the facts. He changes the components of addiction in the article from “featuring all of the behavior” to “fulfilling the six criteria” of addiction and this leaves the audience in a state of confusion. Griffiths needs to be consistent with his facts if he is to utilize logos affectively. Unsubstantiated facts are given throughout the article, all which if further research is taken can be debunked effortlessly. An illustration of this is when Griffiths declares the he “has only come across a handful of genuine gaming addicts in over his two decades.” In the article Excessive Computer Gaming data revealed 11.9% of participants fulfilled diagnostic criteria of addiction concerning their gaming behaviour and were truly addicted. Also, it is important to note Griffiths partook in this article, which means he not only contradicts himself once, but on numerous occasions. He may have not given an exact number in his claim on adolescence being truly addicted to gaming; however, he persuades the reader to believe that gaming is harmless, and the numbers of participants who are truly addicted are close to