Analysis Of Dana Boyd And Don T Limit Your Teen's Screen Time

“Get off your phone.” “I’m taking that laptop away.” Many children have dealt with their parents barging into their rooms and telling them to get off their electronics. Parents believe it is not healthy and therefore should be restricted. The two articles, “Blame Society, Not the Screen Time” by Dana Boyd and “Don’t Limit Your Teen’s Screen Time” by Chris Bergman, both talk about how parents should not limit their kid’s screen time. Both authors are writing to parents of children who they think spend way too much time on their electronics. However, Dana Boyd has a much better compelling argument for not restricting teenager’s screen time. Boyd has a much better appeal to both audiences. She manages to employ better uses of both pathos and logos
Although pathos has it’s spot in arguments and writing in general, logos, or logic, usually persuades older audiences better. Parents will have different values than kids do, and using logos is the best way to go to convince parents. She starts off by explaining her own experience with technology and how she thinks it has been the same experience for everyone. However, further on in the article to say that her thesis is wrong. “When I began my research, I expected to find hordes of teenagers who were escaping “real life” through the Internet.” Later on Boyd says, “To my surprise — and, as I grew older, relief — that differed from what most youth want.” Someone who always claims that they are one hundred percent right all the time is someone who probably is not right one hundred percent all the time. By calling herself out, she has proven that she is a much more reliable source than someone else who have studied family dynamics for ten years and have, somehow, always been
He begins the article with games he grew up with as a child and continues on with pondering why his parents thought that video games were bad for him. He claims that, “They taught me how to tell stories, create worlds and even how to save and spend money.” Different games can provide different sets of values that children can pick up. Bergman conveys that because of video games, he found his career path, which is programming, and that is how he ended up where he is today. Bergman’s use of his own family and lightening the constraint was a good example. But, it was only good for his family. He did not expand his experiment to any other families. He says that he does not want to restrict the kid’s access because if they see someone using technology and then telling them not to, they are going to be much less likely to listen to the adult in question. If a kid sees someone doing something and that same person tells them to not do it, than the child is more likely to question the authority of that person instead of listening to them. Kids always want to know