Have you ever wondered how technology can help increase the clarity of your writing? In the chapter, Public Thinking in the book Smarter Than You Think by Clive Thompson was published in 2013. Thompson is a well- known Canadian journalist, blogger, and technology writer. Being born 1968, it is ironic how he supports the use of technology rather than trying to convince his audience the downside of it. Through being a journalist, blogger, and technology writer, we can determine that Thompson is promoting the use of technology and how it influences better writing through public thinking. The chapter was intended for youth and young adults, old- fashioned writers, college students, people who are anti-internet, bloggers, writers, and everyone
…show more content…
Thompson believes that the use of internet helps improve a writer’s ability to help clarify their thinking process, help clarify the audience’s mind even more, help improve memory of a writer, and help build connections with their audiences. The paper will investigate Thompson’s claims and evidence in order to prove that his argument is unsuccessful by examining his use of the of the following, logos and pathos.
Thompson first states writing helps clarify our thinking. The type of evidence that he uses to support this claim was expert testimony using logos. He quotes from Cecil Day- Lewis from his poetic composition, “If it were clear in my mind, I should have no incentive or need to write about it . . .We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to understand” (Thomson 51). This evidence that Thompson gave us didn’t function to make his argument stronger, therefore this evidence was unsuccessful. This evidence supports old- fashion handwriting rather than using the internet to publish and help clarify the writer’s ideas. The use of logos wasn’t the problem but he should’ve used different evidence …show more content…
The argument that was purposed by Clive Thompson was unsuccessful. Thompson claims use of internet would help advance a writer’s ability to clarify their ideas, audience’s understanding, improve the writer’s memory, and help create a better connection with their audience. It is true that technology and the internet would help improve our writing skills but the evidence that he provided for his audience was unconvincing. To support his first claim, Thompson provides an expert testimony using logos. This evidence was not only irrelevant to his claim but it was also unpersuasive toward his audience. This evidence lacked the use of ethos and pathos. Another claim that was made in the text was an audience even clarifies the writer’s mind more than writing does. To support this claim, he provides his audience with an hypothetical evidence using pathos. Thompson relies too much on this theories like the “hand waving” theory but never backs up those theories with any type of reasoning nor analysis about them. This makes the audience question his credibility. For his third claim, he states that writing about things can also help improve an writer’s memory. He then uses another hypothetical evidence using logos. Again, Thompson purposes a theory and gives the audience evidence but he never backs up his claim with reasoning or any type of analysis. Throughout the text, Thompson
Thompson believes that the use of internet helps improve a writer’s ability to help clarify their thinking process, help clarify the audience’s mind even more, help improve memory of a writer, and help build connections with their audiences. The paper will investigate Thompson’s claims and evidence in order to prove that his argument is unsuccessful by examining his use of the of the following, logos and pathos.
Thompson first states writing helps clarify our thinking. The type of evidence that he uses to support this claim was expert testimony using logos. He quotes from Cecil Day- Lewis from his poetic composition, “If it were clear in my mind, I should have no incentive or need to write about it . . .We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to understand” (Thomson 51). This evidence that Thompson gave us didn’t function to make his argument stronger, therefore this evidence was unsuccessful. This evidence supports old- fashion handwriting rather than using the internet to publish and help clarify the writer’s ideas. The use of logos wasn’t the problem but he should’ve used different evidence …show more content…
The argument that was purposed by Clive Thompson was unsuccessful. Thompson claims use of internet would help advance a writer’s ability to clarify their ideas, audience’s understanding, improve the writer’s memory, and help create a better connection with their audience. It is true that technology and the internet would help improve our writing skills but the evidence that he provided for his audience was unconvincing. To support his first claim, Thompson provides an expert testimony using logos. This evidence was not only irrelevant to his claim but it was also unpersuasive toward his audience. This evidence lacked the use of ethos and pathos. Another claim that was made in the text was an audience even clarifies the writer’s mind more than writing does. To support this claim, he provides his audience with an hypothetical evidence using pathos. Thompson relies too much on this theories like the “hand waving” theory but never backs up those theories with any type of reasoning nor analysis about them. This makes the audience question his credibility. For his third claim, he states that writing about things can also help improve an writer’s memory. He then uses another hypothetical evidence using logos. Again, Thompson purposes a theory and gives the audience evidence but he never backs up his claim with reasoning or any type of analysis. Throughout the text, Thompson