Immediately from the beginning of her article Virginia …show more content…
All the credibility that Heffernan builds with her very sound evidence is wrecked after she fails to adequately present the counterargument. The only mention of any type of counterargument that is for the use of headphones is the phrase that, “Indeed the device seems to solve a real problem by simultaneously letting them have a private auditory experience and keeping shared spaces quiet”. She then quickly refutes this counterargument on sentence later when she states that,” But the downside is plain too: it is anti social. This inadequate presentation of the counterargument that supports headphones cripples Heffernan’s argument because the key to any good argument is the presence of a good analysis of both sides and then comes the refuting. Instead Heffernan put’s in one measly phrase that supports headphones while she spends three and a half pages arguing against headphones which makes her argument seem one sided and weak. Heffernan ends her article by further pointing out that headphones are ant-social and through the use of quotes from other journalists she appeals to the readers emotions by pleading that music should be shared by the community not just through headphones in solitary. In conclusion Heffernan’s article has a weak argument because it lacks an adequate presentation of a counterargument which makes her