The American writer Nicholas Carr, in his article Is Goggle Making Us Stupid, conceives the idea that the Internet is changing the way our brain receives information. information. He tries to convince the reader by inducing fear through anecdotes and research that technology has taken a toll on our brains. Carr, fails to convince me that Google is making us stupid because of its lack of organization and choice of sources. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayCarr begins the article with his personal experience with the Internet. He explains how the Internet has begun “to tinker with [his] brain, to remap neural circuits, to reprogram memory.” He goes on to say that he was able to read long books and articles while getting lost in the pages. But that's not the case now, he can barely read three pages before he starts drifting, fidgeting, or searching for something else. On the other hand, he explains that the Internet has been a boon to him as a writer, because material that used to take days to research is now available to him with just a few clicks. He also adds that even when he's not working, he uses the Internet to check emails, watch videos, listen to podcasts and many other things. To me this seems very confusing at first, he implies that the internet has a negative effect on his brain, but the internet is a "godsend" for him. He seems to devalue the use of the Internet, while making the reader fear that the same thing will happen to him, but in the next paragraph he glorifies it for making his life easier. We never clearly understand his position. Then, Carr continues, some experiences of his friends and acquaintances and how they have similar problems. For example, Scott Karp, a blogger who writes about online media, explains how he stopped reading books altogether while he was in college and speculates that he stopped reading because he thinks differently. Similarly, Bruce Friedman, a blogger who writes about the use of computers in medicine, is unable to read long articles or books. If the reader doesn't know who these people are, they lack credibility because anyone can start a blog and call themselves a blogger. These references have the same authority as any stranger on the street. Therefore, making these anecdotes useless in his argument. If Carr is trying to warn future generations, he should use people with authority, who speak to a younger audience, so they can relate to the experiences. Then, he recognizes that anecdotes are not enough to convince the reader and so he introduces research. He talks about a study conducted by students at University College London, where they proved that people are just skimming articles and people are no longer reading the same way they used to. But is this a bad thing, because over time we evolve and leave behind habits that don't necessarily help us. Carr never really explains whether this new form of reading is good or bad, missing the opportunity to make a convincing argument. He then explains Maryanne Wolf's theory that the connections made with online readings will be different from those made by books and other printed works. And again, it doesn't let the reader know whether making a different connection is necessarily a bad thing. Carr then adds how the Internet has evolved other parts of media, like magazines and newspapers, by shortening articles, providing summaries, and, 34(2), 248-259.