Lehrer's Scientific Arrangement in "The Future of Reading"

In Jonah Lehrer's "The Future of Reading" he writes with a set agenda. He wants to persuade his readers that, while the future of reading, one that involves Kindle and e-ink, is all good, it has its drawbacks. One of those drawbacks, he explains, is a loss of comprehension. Exactly how he goes about with this persuasion is scientific in the way he arranges his thoughts.

The first point in which the reader finds his argument is when he says, "My problem is that consumer technology moves in a single direction: It’s constantly making it easier for us to perceive the content." Up until this point, he has simply told the reader that he is an avid book reader and that he has a bit of a problem with e-readers, but he doesn't say exactly what. Even now, he does not explain right off the bat exactly what he means by "making it easier for us to perceive the content....we will trade understanding for perception." More importantly, he doesn't explain why he feels that is bad. This would be his introduction, using Bacon's terms. This is Lehrer's introduction of his "experiment", one in which he will conclude with a cause. Drawing on the idea of the ascending and descending ladder, the cause will in turn result in new experiments. So, this being his experiment, his hypothesis is that more easily perceived content will result in a drop in comprehension.

As the scientific arrangement progresses, Lehrer moves on to the methods and materials step. This would be the section where he explains the neuroscience behind his reasoning. He explains that there are two methods of reading. One of these involves more difficult text to read physically, due to ink smudges and whatnot, or mentally, due to an awkward phrasing or unknown word. This method, however, results in better comprehension, as explained through the neural activity of the human brain.

After the methods and materials section, Lehrer goes straight on to his results. He explains as clearly as possible, what he wishes for readers to do. He states, "here’s my wish for e-readers. I’d love them to include a feature that allows us to undo their ease, to make the act of reading just a little bit more difficult." This brings everything full circle. The reader has heard his views, read the reasons and facts behind it, and, if the persuasion has worked, is now on Lehrer's side as he presents his results.

"One Day, Now Broken In Two" by Anna Quindlen

The principal aim of Anna Quindlen's "One Day, Now Broken In Two" is only a slight persuasion, but mostly on the side of being merely an explanation. This would be an explanation of a situation that she assumes the American public may be slightly aware of, but hasn't fully realized. In Kinneavy's Basic Purposes of Composition chart, the article would fall under the category of referential diagnosis. Quindlen's tone in the article gives the reader a sense that she is not attempting to persuade them of anything. She simply plays the role of a commentator, assuming her audience has no qualms with the topic, that there is nothing to argue.


Quindlen blurs Kinneavy's boundaries this way. She has a point to make, and when making a point, it generally requires some form of persuasion. However, Quindlen's point is driven home without any persuasion. It almost comes across as fact, as something that was hidden beneath the different sides of the argument. Her point being that there is no pessimistic or optimistic way of looking at the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. She explains that both are correct, which is the way the realists view it. The optimists say, "we are better people than we were before" and the pessimists say "we are people living in a world of unimaginable cruelty and savagery." The realists consider both. She does not persuade. She diagnoses the issue, that September 11 has been split in two: September 11 the day, and 9-11 the terrorist attack.

Short Assignment 1

"Honesty Is Always The Best Policy" by Michael Lemonick

In “Honesty Is Always the Best Policy” Lemonick attempts to demonstrate his honesty in journalism, mostly regarding articles on global warming. Drawing upon ethos, he establishes credibility with his audience by using certain phrases and wording that show he truly is trying to be as honest as possible in his writing. By constantly demonstrating his lack of certainty, he shows his audience that to be an honest journalist, especially when writing about climate change, you can't be completely sure of yourself, considering the instability of the scientific community.

Lemonick says that he joined an organization whose mission was to write stories that “reflected the best available science – no advocacy, no hype.” Yet, he says later, “I've tried to live up to the organization's mission.” The key word here being “tried”. By admitting that he is not perfect, it gives him more credibility as an honest reporter.

At no point in the article does he give either climate change groups – the skeptics and the sensationalists – the upper hand in the argument. Although he criticizes the skeptics, saying, “scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening,” he still acknowledges the scientific world's uncertainty, explaining that “The science of climate change, like all of science, is complex and messy.”

Lemonick uses ethos throughout his article, convincing the audience of his character. This works better than going for logos or pathos. There's no better way to convince an audience of your honesty than to simply show them.