Commentary for Lily

You offer some good research into actual studies where the Internet does in fact lower our thinking abilities. Although great examples, I feel you could make the paper flow a little better. Transitions between paragraphs could help. In your second paragraph I feel you could add a more thorough analysis of the study. There was only one sentence to really explain how it helps your point of view. Also that first paragraph could possibly be split in two; it was difficult to follow a paragraph that was about the length of the page. Other than rewording a few sentences and adding transitions, I feel your argument and paper are quite clear and get your point across well. You followed the structure of a classical argument almost to a T. 

On the topic of your arguments, I felt they were very sound and compelling. In some places though I suggest stating a little information on who did the studies. This would help show that they have the authority to do so. For example if the people conducting the research worked at a fast food restaurant I couldn’t take their findings seriously. The studies that you found really helped support the claim that the Internet is in fact rewiring our brains. I especially enjoyed the research about our brains showing signs of the same kind of addiction to the Internet as to drugs and alcohol. Following the STAR criteria, your evidence was indeed sufficient, typical, accurate as far as I know, and relevant. Although these four all apply the paragraph about addiction, on page three, could be a little more accurate. Most readers will not know what DCM stands for and what it means for people, I have no clue what it is. Including this bit of information could really help your claim. 

On the subject of your refutation, it was quite fair. I feel you could also benefit here by stating a little background on the people you mention. Which large number of experts? Experts of and on what? Are they experts of the brain or experts of computers? The alternative views you use really help strengthen your paper. I doubt people would take the other side and disagree with you. The way you defended your view against the refutation wouldn’t make me change my mind and disagree with you. With how much evidence put forth, a neutral audience would not likely follow the opposition. The reasoning doesn’t sound strong enough.