Rhetorical Analysis Of Smartphone Addiction By James Brown

Many people argue and try to defend the notion that smartphones are not addictive and are simply a small add-on to our life. One such man, author James Brown, wrote “Who says smartphone addiction is a bad thing", and he argues smartphones are devices that fulfill multiple roles that can make our lives easier and is not something we are addicted too but rather depend on. Brown begins building his credibility with personal facts and sensible arguments and successfully employing emotional appeals.

In her article, Brown first sets the stage by describing his personal experiences with smartphones, and then he uses a survey conducted by Lookout on 2000 Americans on whether or not they checked their phones while on the toilet, nearly 40% of them did. Brown effectively makes appeals to pathos by using emotionally-charged words and phrases that create a sympathetic image; Brown notes that the survey was specifically designed to make smartphone users feel like pathetic junkies. His goal is to make the reader have feelings of frustration and anger by

using words that evoke negative emotions.

Throughout his article, Brown uses many strong arguments and personal anecdotes that strengthen his believability and appeal to pathos.

He uses personal situations from his own life to introduce and support the issue, which shows that he has a personal stake in the problem. He states that he is very dependent on his phone, But he is also dependent on many other things and can live without them, but why should he?. He states that it’s time to revisit the difference between addiction and dependency. Arguing that Heroin addicts can die without heroin. But if you were to take away his phone, all that will do is make him bored, less capable and less productive. Here, depending on the perspective of his reader, his use of emotional appeal is very effective and Browns strategy to reach his audience with pathos is a good one. The main idea is that people often misuse and misunderstand the differences between addiction and

dependence.

Additionally, his last statement in the article is that Smartphones don’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. Needing a smartphone is okay, Using a smartphone every minute of your life is not. He argues that people need to learn how too resist using a smartphone for unnecessary things such as looking at unimportant emails or text. He advises his readers to adjust continuous digital connectivity with being human.

In conclusion, Brown begins the essay by effectively persuading her readers of the unfair attacks on smartphone users. Readers can see the problem exists in these surveys and can understand the bias in them. However, despite his effective use of personal examples, his argument would have been more effective if his logic was more developed in some areas. Also, this would have made him more credible in the eyes of current readers. Aside from this, he produces effective emotional appeal that is appropriate for both his target audience and for current readers.