In Joelle Renstrom’s article “And Their Eyes Glazed Over”, she makes the argument that the increased use of technology among students limits their cognitive abilities within their classes. As a writing and research professor at Boston University, she witnesses this on a daily basis, and it happens to be her biggest pet peeve. Her personal experience with this issue is one of the ways Renstrom builds credibility, making her argument an effective one. Renstrom’s motivation for writing this piece was to inform and share the information she had discovered with fellow professors and students alike. Throughout the article, she sticks firmly to her exigence, straying from it only once or twice to acknowledge the usefulness of technology or her own …show more content…
She does this by referring to many different studies that have conducted research on the affects of technology use in college students as well as studies about their pattern of use. By referring to these studies, Renstrom is providing outside evidence to her audience, and giving them additional information that supports her claims. These studies also come from prestigious schools such as University of Waterloo, Cornell University and Princeton University. As these schools are very distinguished, they are considered reliable sources. In a way, these studies that Renstrom discusses also lend her credibility. The author also refers to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which also shows she is using reliable sources. Through the use of logos, Renstrom provides her audience with evidence from distinguished sources that support her claims making her argument …show more content…
At the very beginning of the article, the author claims that students that use their phones during class are her biggest pet peeve. Throughout the rest of the article, Renstrom continues to have a negative attitude towards technology. By presenting this bias, the author could be turning her audience against her if they feel they are being attacked. This bias is a considered a constraint or “limitation on the rhetor” (Grant-Davie 272), which could keep Renstrom’s argument from being effective. When people feel like they are being attacked, they become less likely to accept those ideas coming from someone who is making generalized judgements about them. The bias she presents could make her argument ineffective because it deters some readers from acknowledging the article’s