TOW #26: Argument Against Headphones (NY Times)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/magazine/09FOB-medium-t.html?_r=0

Since before I can remember, headphones have been a part of any music-lover's daily lifestyle. They're easy access to a world of different music when an escape is needed. There are hundreds of different types of headphones: some that stick to the ears for runners, and some that even cancel out all noise around the person wearing them, besides, of course, the music being played. The question is, though, do headphones effect us more negatively than we are aware of? In 2011, Virginia Heffernan wrote an article for the NY Times about whether or not headphones were a good source of entertainment. Using statistics and exemplification, Heffernan convinces her audience that headphones are bad for society.

Heffernan begins her essay with an extremely effective statistic that sets the tone for the rest of her essay. By stating that "One in five teenagers can't hear whispers or rustles" (Heffernan), she automatically focuses the audience's attention on the fact that hearing problems are an incontrovertible effect of wearing headphones. the statistic is not only enough to grasp the reader's attention, but also more than enough to make a solid point, and make the rest of her argument believable. Heffernan also uses statistics when writing about how that number of teens losing hearing has jumped immensely since 1944. This not only supports her last statistic, but ends the introduction paragraph leaving the audience wanting to know more about why headphones are so bad, ultimately strengthening the argument. 

Through the use of exemplification, Heffernan connects to her audience, which is an important factor when trying to convince them of something. For example, she uses this strategy when explaining how exactly the headphones work. In some ways, this is actually ineffective, because she does use some jargon such as "diaphragm" and "conversions and compressions". Overall, though, this is good because by explaining the processes technically, she is giving herself more of a knowledgable status, and letting the audience know that there's no arguing with the science of the headphones. This essentially strengthens Heffernan's argument. 

Heffernan does a great job in explaining the headphones situation to her audience, and she convinces them with ease with her tactics. Through the utilization of statistics and exemplification, Heffernan is able to show her audience why headphones are bad, and make a clear, and strong, argument backed up by pure fact. Her argument is so good, it's almost unarguable.