The American writer, in Nicholas Carr's article, Is Goggle Making Us Stupid, conceives the idea that the network is changing the way in which our brain receives information. It tries to convince the reader by provoking fear through anecdotes and research that technology has put our brain to the test. Carr, you fail to convince me that Google is making us stupid through its lack of organization and choice of sources. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayCarr, begins the article with his personal experience with the network. He explains how the network began "tinkering with [his] brain, remapping neural circuits, reprogramming memory" and goes on to say that he was able to read long books and articles by getting lost in the pages. But that's not the case anymore, now he can barely read three pages before he starts getting distracted, fidgety, or looking for something else. On the other hand, he explains how the Internet has been a godsend for him as a writer because things that used to take days of research are now available to him with just a few clicks. He also adds that even when he's not working he uses the internet to check emails, watch videos, listen to podcasts and many other things. To me this seems very confusing at first, it implies that the net has had a negative effect on his brain and yet the net is a "godsend" for him. He seems to belittle the use of the Internet, making the reader fear that the same thing will happen to him, but in the next paragraph he glorifies it for making his life easier. We never get a clear understanding of his position. Then, Carr continues, some experiences of his friends and acquaintances and how they have similar problems. For example, Scott Karp, a blogger who writes about online media, explains how she stopped reading books altogether even though she was a literature major and speculates that she stopped reading because she thinks differently. Similarly, Bruce Friedman, a blogger who writes about the use of computers in medicine, is unable to read long articles or books. If the reader doesn't know who these people are, they lack credibility because anyone can start a blog and call themselves a blogger. These references have as much authority as any stranger on the street. Therefore, rendering these anecdotes useless in his argument. If Carr, is trying to warn future generations, he should use people in authority, who appeal to a younger audience so they can relate to the experiences. Next, he recognizes that anecdotes are not enough to convince the reader and so introduces research. He talks about a study conducted by students at University College London, in which they show that people are just skimming through articles and that they no longer read as much as they used to. But this is perhaps a bad thing, given that over time we evolve and leave behind habits that don't necessarily help us. Carr never really explains whether this new form of reading is good or bad, missing the opportunity to provide a convincing argument. He then explains Maryanne Wolf's theory that the connections made with online readings will be different from those made with books and other diverse printed works. And once again he doesn't let the reader know whether making different connections is necessarily a bad thing. Carr then adds how the net has made other changes to media such as magazines and newspapers, such as shortening articles, providing summaries and basically making it easier for the more efficient reader. He adds that the New York Times dedicated the second and third pages to article abstracts to satisfy more readers, 34(2), 248-259.