Final Project Extensive Reading

From this article I get the point that the article makes emphasis the author view of why headphones are bad for our hearing health. Pointing out a few principal causes of this problem such as: higher volume levels for a long period of time provokes the damaging of the ear, provoking early sympoms of deaf. Also it mentions that teenagers are having hearings problems provoked by the headphone. It mentions that it's hard to them to listen consonants such as: "t's" and k's" she also pointed out other types of physiological problems such as antisocial behaviors caused for the excessive use of this headphones. Because kids spend much time listen to music watching videos they get away from the outside world around them. The writer reference in how and why they were invented, in the article mentions that they were invented principally for the use of the army for communication in the field. But at first it was just to amplify the sound but later on it was mostly to suppress sounds thet interfered with a good listening of the informatio given to the soldiers, also to suppress the sound of heavy machinary that could damage the ears.

The thesis is clear at the beginning, but later while you are reading. You find out that the thesis changes, the writers talk anout how the headphones were invented. With this statement we can say that the thesis is implicitly the purpose of the author by writing this article is to inform the readers. The article is not academic, but she tries to give some supports to what the writer arguing. The tone used in this article is passive sometimes a bit worried the writer did not gain the readers trust because the authors article does not state a clear idea in how bad the headphones are, is just a vague idea. Looking the author's writing I can see that the writer is a person that cares about the health of people not just for teenagers also for adults. and The writer search for facts in history. what we can say is that the author is serious person.

The article is very credible because it has a few facts in history that talks about. when and how the headphines were invented. Also which was the first function of the device. with this, the article can show to the audience that the author has made an specific research to state the writer thesis. also the author background looks promising the writer has a lot of experience in writing articles. this article has a lot of facts some statistics to prove her point of view abiut headphones. which gives a bit of credibility to the article.

Even though the writer has experience in the field is not completely clear, she jumps from talking about the statistics in how is the percentage of teenagers with hearing problems to how it was invented as this statement says" One in five teenagers in America can't hear rustles of whispers, according to a study published in August in the Journal of teh American Medical Association." and then in a couples of paragraphs ahead. She starts to write "It's not incidental that Baldwin imagined headphones first as way to block out crowd noise and hear sermons." Is a complete contrast between the first paragraph this provokes a little bit of confusion to the audience. This makes a question what is she writing about? Is the article making sense with the thesis?.

The writer gets back on track at the writer gives the conclusion when the writer talks about how parents has to make an effort to avoid their kids to keep damaging their ears saying " Headphones work best for people who need or want to hear one sound story and no other; who don;t want to have to choose which sounds to listen and which to ignore; and who don't want their sounds overhead". The argument is not very logical because some of the article is not congruent with the thesis that headphones are damaging the ears of young people but still the writer was able to defend her thesis.
I really enjoy reading the article it was very interesting not we the fact that it did not convince me to not use them. The fact that really got my attention was little bit of history inside the article. The writer did a good job in punctuation. It missed more information about the topic. The writer could made the article more arguable.