Does Texting Affect Writing Rhetorical Analysis
The advances in technology that focus on communication have completely transformed over the years leading to all new types of ways to connect with someone like through text messages and virtual apps. These advances affect numerous people ranging from students to possibly a boyfriend miles away but what affect do these advances actually have? Michaela Cullington’s “Does Texting Affect Writing?” and Jenna Wortham’s “I Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App.” each address this topic through similar arguments. Cullington bases her argument on the idea that texting does not have an effect on writing. She focuses on research and opinions of others as well as gaining a closer insight through her own research. Cullington’s intends to reach out
…show more content…
to students who are in the same position as her and also teachers who may be curious of a student’s opinion on this topic.
On the other hand, Wortham’s article argues about how virtual communication found through apps can be just as sentimental as physical communication due to all the advances in technology. She too focuses on the research done by others especially the creators of these apps as well as her own opinions that she gained by actually trying out a few of the apps. She intends to reach out to people who are also avid users of virtual communication. Although both articles have similar consistencies in their credibility and logical appeal, Wortham’s overuse of an emotional appeal causes Cullington’s argument to be more effective. In Michaela Cullington’s “Does Texting Affect Writing?” the author effectively establishes credibility and logic that overpowers her small use of emotions. Cullington’s credibility comes into play when her audience is given the information through a footnote that she is a student writing this article (791). This gives the author every right to speak on the topic at hand
because she has her own personal experience with it. She also makes sure to evenly evaluate both sides of others’ arguments where some teachers saw a decline in writing abilities and other teachers saw it as beneficial to their students’ writing (Cullington 792&794). This all ensures that Cullington manages to stray from bias because she does not only address her own opinion. Shifting focus towards her logical appeal, the author conducts her own research. Cullington surveyed seven high school and college students that she deemed some of her closest and most reliable friends (796). The author also surveyed two of her high school teachers and since their responses were much different from the students’, she looked at twenty samples of student writing to see which opinion was more accurate (Cullington 796-97). Cullington proves herself through her credibility and logic and although an emotional appeal is slightly apparent, it is not what the author focuses on to make her claim effective. She sparks her readers’ interest by making the statement in the very beginning that. “It’s taking over our lives” (Cullington 791). Here she wants to really hook her audience in and get them to think about what this so called “it” could be. She also talks of how she knows the abbreviations used in texting are unacceptable in formal writing, so she does not use them to keep from looking unintelligent (Cullington 799). This comment was made in order for the author to become relatable to her audience. As a whole, Michaela Cullington’s article effectively makes her claim that texting has no effect on writing. Her strengths lie in her credibility and logic; therefore, her small use of an emotional appeal does not take away from her claim. Like Cullington’s article, Jenna Wortham’s “I Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App.” has equal amounts of credibility and logic, but her overuses of emotion are her downfall and it puts a limit on her intended audience. Jenna Wortham in “I Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App.” effectively makes the claim that virtual apps are important due to her credibility and logic, but her overbearing emotional appeal keeps her from having an overall effective argument like Cullington’s. Wortham’s credibility is established in a similar way in the sense that we also gain the insight on her through a footnote that she writes about technology for the New York Times (823). With the New York Times being of high rank, Wortham clearly establishes that she has every right to be speaking on this topic. She too looks to the research done by others who have created virtual communication apps. According to these people, the hopes are that the apps will “keep you close with your partner through the power of a smartphone alone” (Wortham 825). Looking into what the actual creators had to say of certain apps is where Wortham keeps herself from becoming biased in her article. When it comes to her logical approach, like Cullington, Wortham makes her own research through actually trying out some apps herself. She states that “these [virtual] conversations can also be a lot more fun than a regular text message” (Wortham 824). Wortham also talks of how her and her boyfriend have used specific apps together like a dating app called You & Me (825). Both of these comments have a positive effect on her logic and that was the author’s reason for having her own input. However, Wortham’s ineffectiveness comes from the overuse of her emotional appeal. The author talks in the beginning of how she spent an entire afternoon with her boyfriend despite being 3,000 miles apart all thanks to video chat apps (Wortham 823). She also makes comments on how when she is using dating apps it is with her boyfriend (Wortham 825). Although she does make a few comments about talking to her friends and family through virtual apps, the reoccurring comments about her and her boyfriend could turn away some of the people she wanted to touch through the article. Especially those who may be using these apps and are single, the comments of a boyfriend may lead them to feel that the article does not include them. This leads Wortham’s argument to be off putting towards those not in a relationship and seems to only focus on those in one. Overall Wortham strongly asserts herself through her credibility and logic but her excessive use of emotions that may not be appealing to everyone she intended keeps her argument from being entirely effective. Although both articles similarly establish their credibility and logic, Cullington’s small emotional appeal rears more effective over Wortham’s strong emotional appeal. Cullington and Wortham both have almost the same amounts of credibility and both articles managed to include footnotes that enhanced each author’s credibility. They also each went the same route when it came to focusing in on their logic by going over their own experience and findings. The real decider came down to the emotional appeal of each in the sense that Cullington barely has one and Wortham had too much of one. Therefore, Cullington’s drawn back approach to an emotional appeal overall makes her argument more effective than Wortham’s. In the end, this all helps to lead to the final conclusion that throughout the years advances in communication have seemed to be nothing but beneficial.
to students who are in the same position as her and also teachers who may be curious of a student’s opinion on this topic.
On the other hand, Wortham’s article argues about how virtual communication found through apps can be just as sentimental as physical communication due to all the advances in technology. She too focuses on the research done by others especially the creators of these apps as well as her own opinions that she gained by actually trying out a few of the apps. She intends to reach out to people who are also avid users of virtual communication. Although both articles have similar consistencies in their credibility and logical appeal, Wortham’s overuse of an emotional appeal causes Cullington’s argument to be more effective. In Michaela Cullington’s “Does Texting Affect Writing?” the author effectively establishes credibility and logic that overpowers her small use of emotions. Cullington’s credibility comes into play when her audience is given the information through a footnote that she is a student writing this article (791). This gives the author every right to speak on the topic at hand
because she has her own personal experience with it. She also makes sure to evenly evaluate both sides of others’ arguments where some teachers saw a decline in writing abilities and other teachers saw it as beneficial to their students’ writing (Cullington 792&794). This all ensures that Cullington manages to stray from bias because she does not only address her own opinion. Shifting focus towards her logical appeal, the author conducts her own research. Cullington surveyed seven high school and college students that she deemed some of her closest and most reliable friends (796). The author also surveyed two of her high school teachers and since their responses were much different from the students’, she looked at twenty samples of student writing to see which opinion was more accurate (Cullington 796-97). Cullington proves herself through her credibility and logic and although an emotional appeal is slightly apparent, it is not what the author focuses on to make her claim effective. She sparks her readers’ interest by making the statement in the very beginning that. “It’s taking over our lives” (Cullington 791). Here she wants to really hook her audience in and get them to think about what this so called “it” could be. She also talks of how she knows the abbreviations used in texting are unacceptable in formal writing, so she does not use them to keep from looking unintelligent (Cullington 799). This comment was made in order for the author to become relatable to her audience. As a whole, Michaela Cullington’s article effectively makes her claim that texting has no effect on writing. Her strengths lie in her credibility and logic; therefore, her small use of an emotional appeal does not take away from her claim. Like Cullington’s article, Jenna Wortham’s “I Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App.” has equal amounts of credibility and logic, but her overuses of emotion are her downfall and it puts a limit on her intended audience. Jenna Wortham in “I Had a Nice Time with You Tonight. On the App.” effectively makes the claim that virtual apps are important due to her credibility and logic, but her overbearing emotional appeal keeps her from having an overall effective argument like Cullington’s. Wortham’s credibility is established in a similar way in the sense that we also gain the insight on her through a footnote that she writes about technology for the New York Times (823). With the New York Times being of high rank, Wortham clearly establishes that she has every right to be speaking on this topic. She too looks to the research done by others who have created virtual communication apps. According to these people, the hopes are that the apps will “keep you close with your partner through the power of a smartphone alone” (Wortham 825). Looking into what the actual creators had to say of certain apps is where Wortham keeps herself from becoming biased in her article. When it comes to her logical approach, like Cullington, Wortham makes her own research through actually trying out some apps herself. She states that “these [virtual] conversations can also be a lot more fun than a regular text message” (Wortham 824). Wortham also talks of how her and her boyfriend have used specific apps together like a dating app called You & Me (825). Both of these comments have a positive effect on her logic and that was the author’s reason for having her own input. However, Wortham’s ineffectiveness comes from the overuse of her emotional appeal. The author talks in the beginning of how she spent an entire afternoon with her boyfriend despite being 3,000 miles apart all thanks to video chat apps (Wortham 823). She also makes comments on how when she is using dating apps it is with her boyfriend (Wortham 825). Although she does make a few comments about talking to her friends and family through virtual apps, the reoccurring comments about her and her boyfriend could turn away some of the people she wanted to touch through the article. Especially those who may be using these apps and are single, the comments of a boyfriend may lead them to feel that the article does not include them. This leads Wortham’s argument to be off putting towards those not in a relationship and seems to only focus on those in one. Overall Wortham strongly asserts herself through her credibility and logic but her excessive use of emotions that may not be appealing to everyone she intended keeps her argument from being entirely effective. Although both articles similarly establish their credibility and logic, Cullington’s small emotional appeal rears more effective over Wortham’s strong emotional appeal. Cullington and Wortham both have almost the same amounts of credibility and both articles managed to include footnotes that enhanced each author’s credibility. They also each went the same route when it came to focusing in on their logic by going over their own experience and findings. The real decider came down to the emotional appeal of each in the sense that Cullington barely has one and Wortham had too much of one. Therefore, Cullington’s drawn back approach to an emotional appeal overall makes her argument more effective than Wortham’s. In the end, this all helps to lead to the final conclusion that throughout the years advances in communication have seemed to be nothing but beneficial.