Monday, August 25, 2008

“Won’t You Be My Friendser?” 5

Why do you think Wurster presents the network’s benefits in the order she does (par. 3-5)? Do you think this arrangement is effective, or would you prefer another? Why?

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Wurster presents the network’s benefits (par. 3-5) to add more effectiveness to her idea. In the third paragraph, Wurster first states generally why social networks have a worthy function. Then through her fourth and fifth paragraph she supports it with more specific example through her own experiences. The way Wurster uses three paragraphs to support why social networks are worthy functions and only one paragraph to show the problem adds to this effectiveness. Wurster gives example while presenting the benefits while she only lists the problems. She shows the reader that social networks are more beneficial than problematic through her arrangement.

kristeena said...

Like Hyun Ah said, Wurster's method of presenting the arguments is by first stating a broad aspect of the networks functions and later going into more detailed experiences. Although Wurster's arrangement is some-what effective, she could have changed it to make it more successful. If she had put her personal experiences first and later the broad view of advantages, the broader view would have served as a wrap-up of her experiences. The reason this would have been more effectual is because the readers would remember her points of the network's advantages rather than remembering a stranger's personal experiences.

JinA said...

Wurster presents the network's benefits in the order she actually experienced them. In paragraph 3, she mentions her interactions with her friends and some strangers. She left that networks were like icebreakers. In paragraph 4, she has more interactions with new people with different cultures, backgrounds, interests, and goals. Wurster social circle has become wider. Later in paragraph 5, she actually becomes friends with people that used to be strangers. She not only meets new people, but actually gets close to them. This arrangement is effective because readers can see the network's benefits throughout time. It gives readers a way to experience what Wurster went through exploring the benefits of social-networking sites.

Young Eui Hong said...

Wurster begins describing the social-networking sites and later states more details and specific matters about the sites. The way she wrote her argument is very effective because an argument is stronger when it starts generally and later becomes deeper and more direct. If Wurster would have written the argument in a reversed format (strong to weak) the entire argument would be ineffective because when the author's point becomes broader as it progresses, the point may be unclear, not convincing and pointless.

Da-Re Kim said...

I agree with what Kristeena said, Wurster's article would have been more effective if it was arranged differently. The subject is so broad that the author's personal experiences did not stand out very much. A person's statement on liking or disliking network sites is not always memorable to others. However, the author's arrangment on having one paragraph filled with the problems with network sites was effective. It was effective because it focused very well on the real-world problems that people do not often realize while using social-network sites.

dani.k said...

The way she places the paragraphs, form a general outlook to her specific experiences, proves to be effective. It eases her readers into the idea of social-networking being beneficial, instead of overwhelming them with specifics from the start. Taking into consideration that her audience is supposed to be hard-headed, if she would have organized the paragraphs in any other way, it could have ended up offending the reader. Paragraph 3 she uses a question (“…how often do we try to define ourselves or respond to how they define themselves?”) to address the point she wants to make and involves the audience by providing something they can relate to. In paragraph 4 she supports the general outlook about expanding horizons and getting to know people we wouldn’t have taken the time to meet in the first place, and, tying it all together, Paragraph 5 provides evidence to show how all she is supporting is not bogus; she herself has lived it. Any other way, the order of the paragraphs would not have been as impacting. They are sort of an upside-down pyramid, all leading up to the basic support.