ILO Sample  #1 

                        ENGL 5: Comparison Paper 

                                          Prof. Goldweber, Fall 2015 

 

  Since the dawn of man, the creation and invention of tools to help facilitate and 

navigate through all of life’s nuances has been a common practice.  The human brain is 

programmed to interpret its environment by taking all the information it receives and 

processing it through millions of tiny nerves cells in our brain called neurons. Over the past 

millions of years, the human brain has adapted surprisingly rapid and has helped humans 

develop skills and abilities that have ensured the survival of our species. This marked increase in 

skills and abilities can largely be attributed to the coupling of tools and technology into our 

daily lives. Today our society is so inundated with tools of technology that a world without 

smart phones and wireless internet is almost unimaginable. However, some question the 

affects that over reliance on technology has on our brain. These people worry that our mental 

capacity, or the brains ability to withhold information, is being threatened by the very tools that 

were created to assist us with obtaining knowledge.  

Nicholas Carr, author of “Is Google Making us Stupid” (2008) shares the concerns of 

those individuals. Carr writes  “Over the past few years, I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that 

someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, 

reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going‐ so far as I can tell, but it’s changing.” Carr 

continues his argument against over utilization of technology by stating “I’m not thinking the 

way I used to think. I can feel it most strongly when I’m reading.”  In “Is Google Making us 

Stupid?” Carr argues that due to the flexible and pliable nature of neuron cells, we have shaped 

our brains into new, less capable forms, by overly relying on technology. In his article Carr 

quotes Maryanne Wolf, a Developmental Psychologist and author of Proust and the Squid: The 

Story and Science of the Reading Brain (2007) to support his claims of how the human brain can 

be affected by not only the type of information it receives, but also the route of administration. 

Wolf concluded that “We are not only what we read. We are how we read it...” which supports 

Carr’s theory that digesting a bunch of information from your computer would undoubtedly 

change how your brain processes said information.  

Carr’s article caused major uproar not only in the medical community, but also in the 

technology sector. At first glance it’s easy to dismiss Carr’s opinion as the typical hecklings of a 

generation that has lost its grasp on technology and thus lost its place in society. Whenever any 

new piece of technology is introduced into society, there are always those who oppose it. 

When the typewriter was created they said pen and paper would never again be used. Same 

goes for the radio, television, and now it’s the computer. Carr’s passionate approach and 

informal tone gives him a very “likable quality.” Carr strays away from utilizing overly technical 

or biological terms in his piece which allow the reader to feel almost familiar with him. Carr also 

speaks candidly in his article and confesses things like “I feel as if I’m always dragging my 

wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come natural has become a 

struggle.”  Carr utilizes a variety of length of sentences throughout his article that gives the 

piece a conversational feeling. The title of the article itself is a rhetorical one that can’t be really 

be answered out right. These qualities make the reader of “Is Google Making us Stupid?” let 

their guards down a little bit, especially when it comes to credibility.   

In stark contrast to Carr, Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor of Psychology published a 

piece titled “Mind over Mass Media” (2010) that questioned the validity of public worry 

concerning the use of technology and its effect on mental capacity. Pinker dismisses claims of 

technology negatively affecting our brain writing that “such panics often fail basic reality 

checks. When comic books were accused of turning juveniles into delinquents in the 1950’s, 

crime was falling to record lows, just as the denunciations of video games in the 1990’s 

coincided with the great American crime decline.” Pinker notes that critics of new media often 

use scientific studies that prove the existence of “brain elasticity” in attempts to corroborate 

their fears. However, the majorities of Cognitive Neuroscientists discredit such notions and are 

of the opinion that “the existence of neural plasticity does not mean the brain itself is a blob of 

clay pounded into shape by experience.” Pinker argues that the rapid and constant rate in 

which we can now access information may be distracting or addictive, but the technology itself 

isn’t capable of “re‐wiring” our brain or slowing down its original information processing ability. 

Pinker’s article is a compelling one that is full of examples and research. His positive 

attitude towards technology and media are apparent, but not overwhelming in “Mind over 

Mass Media”. In his piece, Pinker often utilizes longer structured sentences and examples that 

convey a sense of true academia and knowledge. Unlike Carr, Pinker doesn’t seek to establish a 

“friendly” vibe and maintains a formal tone in his writing. This writing style assists in providing 

Pinker with an additional level or credibility. Pinker must realize this and populates his article 

with phrases like “thorough research,” “rigorous reasoning,” and “information‐processing 

capabilities,” that discourages anyone who doesn’t possess a PhD to question his stance on the 

subject. 

In my opinion, out of these two articles, Pinker has the better piece. I believe his 

intellectual approach with little sprinkles of humor, especially towards the end, and his 

expertise in the field asserts his “fact over fiction” platform. I also share Pinker’s attitude 

toward technology. As time goes on our world around us will continues to develop. In order to 

meet the demands that we will be faced with in the future, we must be willing to adapt. These 

challenges are more easily met if we have tools and technology at our disposure.  

ILO Sample Comparison #2

Prof. Goldweber

English 5

18 Nov 2015

Comparison Paper

We all know that climate change is a serious problem, a problem most people ignore

or leave up to others to figure out. Researchers, scientists, and authors are trying to get

everyone’s attention and come up with a solution to reduce climate change. Two authors,

one by the name, David A. Fahrenthold, and the other, Graeme Wood, discuss the issue of

climate change and propose solutions to reduce carbon emissions both using unique,

persuasive and informative strategies to steer the audience into thinking more about the

future of our planet.

In David A. Fahrenthold’s article, “Its Natural To Behave Irrationally” (2009), he

claims that a reason why many people ignore climate change is due to a psychological issue

that causes the idea to “kick at emotional dead spots in all human brains-but especially in

American brains.” He believes that people tend to treat the problem as if someone else is

going to fix it because there is no specific entity to blame or no easy explanations on what

people need to do. But, he also feels like people don’t care and the only way to get someone

to change their behavior and save energy is to get them to compare themselves with their

neighbor. In a study done near San Diego in 2007 and a software company in Arlington,

Fahrenthold found that the most successful way they got people to save energy was when

they were given comparisons of customers power usage around their neighborhood.

David Fahrenthold is a Harvard graduate and a reporter for the Washington post for

environmental news, which makes him credible that he knows his topic. He writes this to

all people, but especially American as he points out that we are doing less than what other

countries are doing. When he starts the article there is a tone of anger and disappointment,

but also anxiousness to figure out a solution to get people to save energy. He uses a lot of

logic because he gives many examples of studies, research, and psychological analysis, but

he also uses pathos because his tone of disappointment and it can make one feel sad to

think no one cares about the future of the planet. His diction is medium because he does

have a formal, serious topic, but some of his sentences structures are somewhat long and

fragmented, especially with his use of dashes. In the beginning of the article he asks a

rhetorical question after noting that polls say people think that climate change is a

“serious” problem, “so rationally, shouldn’t they be doing something to fight it?” as a way to

get the reader to think more about the situation. Fahrenthold also uses repetition when he

discusses the problems associated to progress in his middle chapter, by saying first the

“policy problem”, “Another problem- system justification,” a “third problem,” and so on.

Fahrenthold’s strategy to get people to do something about climate change is to back his

point by research and to reveal to people that sometimes you have to set them off guard by

getting them to compare themselves to others in order to make a change.

In Graeme Wood’s article, “Moving Heaven and Earth” (2009), he stresses that the

threat of global warning is becoming more dangerous and that we, the human race, need to

be more involved in knowing what geo-engineers propose to do to solve this problem of

too much carbon emissions in the atmosphere. He states that humans have been drastically

changing our planet for hundred of years and that scientists called, geo-engineers, plan to

change it in ways that can ultimately lead it to its doom. He explains that some of their

solutions to essentially try and cover the sun by “painting the clouds white” and to “shoot

Frisbee-like ceramic disks” into the sky for 10 years. Still, he worries what the side effects

would eventually be and urges that we become involved before someone else does because

some of the scariest solutions are easily available and cheap. Wood also infers that if geo-

engineering does become our scapegoat out of climate change, the governments will not do

anything in the future to lower emissions that caused the problem in the first place. Wood

warns people in this article the dreadful consequences of climate change and geo-

engineering that could eventually happen if we continue to ignore the issue.

Graeme Wood studied languages, went to Indiana University, and is renowned for

his travel pieces in many magazines including Atlantic. As someone who has studied

language and is considered well traveled, he might have a more broad perspective on the

issue when it comes to how others feel in different places around the world. His tone is

very ominous in the beginning, especially as he leads into his illustration of the future after

catastrophic climate change where sulfur dioxide is being pumped into the air and you

would see “fire hose stretching into the sky, like spaghetti,..” His audience is everyone,

because he’s talking about the future of the whole planet. His diction is medium, because he

does have formal structure but he uses the word, And, to begin a sentence, and he writes as

if he is talking right to you. He also uses similes to reach his audience, for example, he

writes “its like taking aspirin for cancer,” when he describes one strategy gone wrong to try

and cool the planet. Wood definitely uses pathos to support his claims, because he uses fear

as a way of getting his readers attention. He infers that “a prolonged love affair with carbon

dioxide will end disastrously,” which does sound pretty scary and may be overstating a bit.

Woods strategy to grab his reader’s attention is to scare by giving examples of what geo-

engineers are talking about and the effects that could happen if they were implemented.

The piece I found more affected would be Graeme Wood’s article because it did

seem scarier. When he puts the picture in your mind of what the world could be like and

the negative changes it makes you think more about how serious the issue is. I do

empathize with David Fahrenthold when he points out that people do not care about what

is happening because it makes me sad that it is everyone who is putting this aside. It also

brings me worry, but he doesn’t add the stress and panic like Wood does. One thing I liked

about Fahrenthold is how he structured his article into three parts making it easier for the

reader to organize their thoughts. Also, I liked that it was short. Although Fahrenthold had

a good strategy to back up his claim using ethos to draw in his readers, I was more

convinced with Graeme’s technique of fear of a catastrophic future.

ILO Sample Comparison #3

ENGL 5

Professor Goldweber

November 18, 2015

The Battle of Technology Wits

Nicholas Carr and Steven Pinker each discuss the impact of technology on human

intelligence; and each draws his own conclusion. Carr, argues that the internet is

essentially causing our minds to be reprogrammed, and not for the better. Conversely,

Pinker, argues that not only has digital information not harmed our knowledge and

intelligence, it has actually improved it. Both make interesting arguments, and each is

creative in the evidence he uses to support his claims.

In “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (2008), Carr states that easy access and immediacy

to information has conditioned society to be distracted and unable to maintain the focus

it once had. As evidence, Karr begins by telling us about his own experience, that of his

friends, as well as a couple bloggers. In short, they are all noticing they do not read

much anymore. To get a little more scientific, Karr cites a London university study that

suggests researchers are skimming more and hopping from one source to the next

rapidly. From this, the people conducting the study conclude that these people “go

online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.” Karr stresses the relationship between

media type and patterns of cognition, claiming how we read affects how we think. “As

we use our intellectual technologies we inevitably begin to take on the qualities of those

technologies.” To back this up, Karr describes how switching from handwriting to a

typewriter affected Friedrich Nietzsche’s writing, and concomitantly, his thoughts. Karr

also cites as an example the impact the mechanical clock had on humans. “In deciding

when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started

obeying the clock.” Karr expresses his fear that, as the internet subsumes so many

different media and intellectual technologies (“It’s becoming our map, our clock, our

printing press and our typewriter, our calculator and our telephone, and our radio and

TV.”), we will be all the more at its mercy.

Karr concedes to many of the benefits technology provides, but talk by Google

regarding making machines that are smarter than people, and the commoditization of

intelligence, unnerve him too much to not have serious reservations.

In “Mind Over Mass Media” (2010), Steven Pinker stands up for technology and claims

that its critics follow a long of hysterians, naysayers, and doomsdayers, who have all

preached the imminent downfall of society at the hands of some new technology.

According to Pinker “such panics often fail basic reality checks.” He argues that “[f]ar

from making us stupid, these technologies are the only things keeping us smart.” He

believes critics are putting too much thought and analysis into the issue. For him, it’s

much simpler: “habits of deep reflection, thorough research and rigorous

reasoning…are not granted by propping a heavy encyclopedia on your lap, nor are they

taken away by efficient access to information on the internet.” As an example, Pinker

argues that modern science requires the utmost level of intelligence and its

accomplishments are calculated by monumental touchstones. Pinker points out that

scientists religiously use technology such as PowerPoint, e-mail and “rarely touch paper”

any longer. So how could electronics be detrimental to our minds? Pinker implies that if

someone has fallen victim to the technology blues, then they must have attention deficit

disorder or lack self-control.

Carr’s diction style is medium at best. His audience is geared towards most likely a

national audience and generally to anyone that takes an interest in technology and

reading. He may also be targeting an adult audience that would be familiar with Stanley

Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is a little bit of everything in Carr’s article

(ethos, pathos and logos). He uses examples from his own experiences, as well as his

friends and colleagues. He attempts to persuade his audience by scaring them into

believing that giving into this new technological culture that “we risk turning into pancake

people” and by mentioning how he is haunted by a scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey

when HAL, the computer has more feelings than its human counterparts.

Pinker’s diction style is medium. Like Carr, Pinker’s audience is aimed towards a

general, national audience of anyone who is interested in technology. It may be favored

more towards people who support technologizing the future as Pinker does. Pinker’s

article is mainly logos and pathos. His purpose is to persuade and debunk the idea that

technology is making people less smart. His tone feels almost annoyed that anyone

would not share his point of view.

Although, Pinker’s article was fun to read and had some really great points, I think

Nicholas Carr conquers in this battle of the technology wits. Carr’s piece was well

thought out and offers an abundance of support to back his theory. Pinker’s article is

comes off as one sided and absolute while Carr actually advises his readers to be

skeptical of his skepticism.