The benefits and consequences of headphones are widely debated and whether or not their benefits outway their consequences is a topic of controversy among many. There are those who assert that headphones are a great invention and despite their negative effect on a person’s hearing over time they are worth it. On the other hand there are those who argue that despite the usefulness of headphones they are not worth the anti-social behavior they promote and the damaging effect that they have on ears. Virginia Heffernan a journalist for the New York Times in her article titled Against Headphones agrees with the side that says headphones are not worth the negative damage that they have on people.
Immediately from the beginning of her article Virginia …show more content…
All the credibility that Heffernan builds with her very sound evidence is wrecked after she fails to adequately present the counterargument. The only mention of any type of counterargument that is for the use of headphones is the phrase that, “Indeed the device seems to solve a real problem by simultaneously letting them have a private auditory experience and keeping shared spaces quiet”. She then quickly refutes this counterargument on sentence later when she states that,” But the downside is plain too: it is anti social. This inadequate presentation of the counterargument that supports headphones cripples Heffernan’s argument because the key to any good argument is the presence of a good analysis of both sides and then comes the refuting. Instead Heffernan put’s in one measly phrase that supports headphones while she spends three and a half pages arguing against headphones which makes her argument seem one sided and weak. Heffernan ends her article by further pointing out that headphones are ant-social and through the use of quotes from other journalists she appeals to the readers emotions by pleading that music should be shared by the community not just through headphones in solitary. In conclusion Heffernan’s article has a weak argument because it lacks an adequate presentation of a counterargument which makes her
Immediately from the beginning of her article Virginia …show more content…
All the credibility that Heffernan builds with her very sound evidence is wrecked after she fails to adequately present the counterargument. The only mention of any type of counterargument that is for the use of headphones is the phrase that, “Indeed the device seems to solve a real problem by simultaneously letting them have a private auditory experience and keeping shared spaces quiet”. She then quickly refutes this counterargument on sentence later when she states that,” But the downside is plain too: it is anti social. This inadequate presentation of the counterargument that supports headphones cripples Heffernan’s argument because the key to any good argument is the presence of a good analysis of both sides and then comes the refuting. Instead Heffernan put’s in one measly phrase that supports headphones while she spends three and a half pages arguing against headphones which makes her argument seem one sided and weak. Heffernan ends her article by further pointing out that headphones are ant-social and through the use of quotes from other journalists she appeals to the readers emotions by pleading that music should be shared by the community not just through headphones in solitary. In conclusion Heffernan’s article has a weak argument because it lacks an adequate presentation of a counterargument which makes her