Scott Steinberg, the author of the news article, Why does the media still think video games are bad for kids, outdid himself this time writing this article. It was very persuasive and gives very good reasons and counterarguments for why video are actually good for kids.
The underlying structure of this article is clear. The author first gives a few reasons for why video games are good for kids, then he gives a few arguments for why video game's supposedly bad aspects aren't actually there. The reasons he gave that video games are actually good are small reasons, but as the amazing persuader he is, he makes those points seem so major that they obviously destroy all bad parts of video games. His counter arguments weren't that special. He said what any average writer would say, it's not scientifically proven yet, the data doesn't say so etc. But what made his counter arguments amazing was how he backed them up. He used quotes from all sorts of people, and also provides very convincing facts. The close-to-concluding thought was also a very good note to end with, "Ultimately, gaming experts say, whether games are beneficial or detrimental to kids comes down to fundamental playing habits, exposure to age-appropriate content and, most vitally, active parental involvement." Overall, this article was very well written and served it's purpose.
Post for today: Write two FULL paragraphs on a goal you want to achieve. Make it a realistic, specific, long-term one. In short - a goal that you will actually set out to go after once you're done writing. Describe your motivations, what you'll do to achieve it, what inspired it, your plan for attaining it.
ReplyDeleteThe main thing I want you to think about when writing an analysis of an article is whether or not you're being _specific_. Take the sentences from what you wrote, and ask yourself if they could apply to any other article.
For example: "It was very persuasive and gives very good reason and counterarguments..." Doesn't every article give reasons and counterarguments?
"Overall, this article was very well written and served it's purpose." Doesn't every article do this?
"He used quotes from all sorts of people, and also provides very convincing facts." Doesn't every article do this?
"The close-to-concluding thought was also a very good note to end with, "Ultimately, gaming experts say, whether games are beneficial or detrimental to kids comes down to fundamental playing habits, exposure to age-appropriate content and, most vitally, active parental involvement." " In a normal-sized essay, quoting is perfectly acceptable, but in a piece of this length, this quote takes up too large a chunk of your writing. You're not saying anything new - you're just saying, "And he ended with 'this quote' ".
In the end, the most major thing you need to work on is analysis that stretches beyond "the author was convincing and very good."
This is how I would write an analysis:
Scott Steinberg brings nothing new to the table with his recent article, "Why does the media still think that video games are bad for kids." Instead, he merely rehashes points that have been made much more eloquently and comphrehensively elsewhere: that studies on the link between video games and violence is incnclusive, that video games promote creative thinking and bonding among players, that critics of video games are outdated and suffering from a generation game.
Instead of valid analysis of the situation, Steinberg seems content to merely copy and paste quotes from media sources and industry analysts. He never moves to justify his opinion that video games are a positive influence, instead simply reporting that, "Experts say that playing video games helps develop kids' lateral thinking and decision-making skills." He also doesn't consider any counterarguments beyond video games and violence. What about the studies which show that video gamers tend to be a full letter grade lower in school than their non-video gaming counterparts?
In fact, his article is full of both holes and cherrypicking. Many negative impacts are ignored: contribution to obesity from kids are sitting on the couch rather than outside playing sports, poorer grades in school, the link to video games and ADD, etc.
Maybe Steinberg is right - maybe video games really aren't harmful to our kids. But do we really want our future generation to have grown up staring at a TV screen while twiddling their thumbs? Do you really want your child to have spent his teenage years playing Grand Theft Auto, trashing cars and picking up virtual prostitutes?
Consider that the next time you buy your kid an xBox for Christmas.