Rhetorical Analysis Of Do I Really Have To Join Twitter

The Power of Rhetorical Elements

In his essay, “Do I Really Have To Join Twitter”, Manjoo discusses if joining Twitter is necessary or not. His main claim is that joining Twitter is not necessary. He says that the reason is, because Twitter is not worth your time (163). Manjoo also says that there is no real point behind tweeting. He is able to support his claim with several grounds. His first ground is that Twitter does not improve on any other form of communication. Twitter takes the aspects of several other forms of communication and combines them to from microblogging. Though, they created this new form of communication, it does not make communication any faster or easier than anything you previously were doing (164). The second ground

he provides is that Twitter is not needed to stay socially relevant.

There are many other ways to gain information and talk to people more effectively than Twitter, i.e. Facebook (164). Manjoo’s final ground is that Twitter lacks social intimacy. There is no real connection between Twitter users. If someone follows you, you do not have to follow them and in doing so, you do not see their tweets. This also makes it hard for beginners to get started. It takes a very long time to amass a substantial amount of follower (164). The warrant for his essay is that for something to be worth your time it must have staying power, social intimacy, and utility. He backs this warrant by constantly questioning how long Twitter will last and whether it is a fad (164). Manjoo’s claim and use of rhetorical elements made this argument quite effective and clear. His claim was precise and offered fair reasoning. He was able to back

everything up and kept it all connected.
In his essay, “Take the Data out of Dating”, Madrigal talks about the new movement of online matchmaking.

He claims that more and more people are beginning to ditch the traditional method of matchmaking for the online version. People believe that since the online algorithms matched them up with someone, it will definitely work out (165). His sub-claim is that the use of algorithms in matchmaking is potentially dangerous. He believes this because the co-founder of OkCupid, Sam Yagan, said that they could tailor the algorithms to match different races either more or less, based on how they are viewed in society (166). He says that people are set up with their statistical match, because the people answer a set of questions to give the site a base of information for their algorithms. Though that data is not enough to get a perfect match, the sites use data-mining software to dig through the user’s computer to find everything the person does (165). This allows for the sites to get the best possible results with their algorithms. Madrigal’s warrant is that a statistical match does not always mean a correct match. Many things work well on paper, but never come to fruition in real life (166). He backs the warrant by saying that, “it’s when people deviate from what we predict they’ll do that they prove they are individuals, set apart from all others of the human type” (166). He is pretty much saying that everyone human is unique and that we deviate from predictions. Madrigal’s

argument was less effective than Manjoo’s. His argument was not nearly as clear as Manjoo’s was. He also provided less evidence to support his claim, but he did use a credible source.
These two essays are written in different ways. In Manjoo’s essay, his argument is very clear the whole way through. In Madrigal’s, it gets a little cloudy and it is hard to see what he is arguing for, but it clears up at the end. Manjoo does not have to use any outside sources, because everyone that has ever been on Twitter understands all the problems he addresses. The downfalls of Twitter are self-evident, while the downfalls of online dating are easily masqueraded. People don’t question how online matches work. All the users know is that they answer a few questions and the get a match. This is why Madrigal brings in the co-founder of OkCupid, to shed light on what really goes on in the algorithms. Manjoo does not have to provide a warrant, because his is fairly obvious. If something lacked those elements, then why would you invest your time in it. Madrigal decided to provide his audience with warrant. His warrant drives his point home, that a match from an algorithm does not exactly mean it’s going to work out in the long-run. Both essays provide substantial rhetorical elements, but they lay them out differently. Manjoo in beating the same point throughout his essay, while Madrigal explains the reasoning behind the thing he is arguing against and then he points out a fatal flaw in the system. While both are effective arguments, Manjoo’s was more powerful, because he provided more points and it was easier to relate to the problems.