With the rise in access to technological devices steadily increasing (likely due to the glamour and ease these products bring to 21st century life), it isn’t surprising that many children are beginning to write “my own cell phone” on their (actual or metaphorical) wish list. However, due to the expensive nature of mobile devices as well as the premature freedom that cell phones can bring to young children, many concerned parents are unsure about giving into the begging cries of their “tweenager.” The following passages contain arguments that are for and against the idea of providing children between the ages of eight and twelve a cell phone of their very own. Deborah Pendergast, the author of the first passage and a representative of a large telecommunications company, believes children should be given a cell phone at the age of ten, as this supposedly helps create a feeling of freedom for the child. The author of the second passage(Linda Sidner) on the other hand, a veteran teacher of the age group in question, is a bit more hesitant, considering the likelihood of these children coming across cyberbullying and websites that are too mature for them. Due to the possible conflict of interest with the speaker of the first passage, her use of the bandwagon fallacy and an attitude focused more on the consumerism benefits for the companies getting money than the benefits young people may reap from having premature access to cell phones, it becomes clear that the first argument is the weaker argument.
It is my personal opinion that if the author of the first passage didn’t disclose her occupation her argument would be much stronger. She makes this mistake in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph, almost immediately discrediting her opinion and anything that may precede as ‘evidence.’ Deborah Pendergast works as a “representative of a large telecommunications company.” A person working for a company that sells mobile devices… because of this surely she will have an opinion favoring what will benefit the companies selling mobile devices as opposed to the children getting their hands on these products? If you happened to think of this, you are correct, for she only talks about the supposed ‘benefits’ of children (or, “tweenagers”) having their own cell phone; she provides no counterclaim in her argument.
Not only is the author’s position on this topic coming from a biased point of view, but she also attempts to use a fallacy as evidence. She opens the second paragraph of her essay with this: “A 2012 survey by the National Consumers League backs me up.” Ah, consumerism. Not sure if this is a viable source if one is trying to prove the benefits of owning products, but let’s look at the statistic before forming further conclusions. “The survey found that almost 60 percent of children ages 8 to 12 already have cell phones.” This is known as a bandwagon fallacy. The reasoning that is being used could be rephrased like this: because the majority of tweenagers own cell phones, all tweenagers should own cell phones. Pendergast did use a statistic from a valid source (this is one of the small amounts of factual evidence from a credible source), but the statistic, in my personal opinion, does not support the claim that children ages 8 to 12 should own cell phones. All it seems to do is further support the belief that her position is a biased one.
Conversely, the speaker of the second argument holds anything but a biased point of view. Linda Sidner is the speaker’s name, and she is a former teacher for children in the “tweenager” age demographic (or, children ages 8 to 12). Unlike Pendergast, the likelihood of Sidner having a greater understanding of the way in which children will utilize and react to the “freedom” of having cell phones is much higher. Because of this, her position may appeal to the concerned parents of these young people much more. On the topic of the supposed benefit of “freedom” that tweenagers may reap from owning their own cell phone (an idea that Pendergast milked until it was dry), the former teacher believes the probability of negative experiences coming from premature cell phone use may outweigh this feeling of freedom for the maturing children. She writes: “…Parents may be lulled into a false sense of security about knowing where their child is and who he is with, thinking ‘I can always reach him on his phone.’” This is a valid point: the act of having a cell phone does not mean your child will alway be safe. Cyberbullying and access to inappropriate websites was a strong concern that Sidner discussed: “…Cell phones give children access to all the frightening, dangerous, and inappropriate sites on the Internet, with no parent nearby to monitor this activity. But perhaps the most worrisome aspect of giving cell phones to children is the rise in ‘cyberbullying’ or ‘text bullying…’ In one study, researcher Elizabeth Englander found that by middle school, over 90% of children report that they use their cell phones to text or go on the internet. She also found that in grades 3 through 5, between 14 and 19 percent of children reported being victims of cyberbullying.” The statistics Linda Sidner uses fully support her reasonable claim. It becomes self-evident that the second passage holds the stronger argument.
Perhaps I am being a bit too cynical about the background of both speakers, but even by analyzing supporting evidence alone, the use of the bandwagon fallacy and lack of counterclaim still makes the first argument the weaker of the two. Perhaps if Deborah Pendergast chose to elaborate on why her position was right and displayed how her supporting evidence was tied to her claim, I would deem it to be the stronger argument, but when you put it next to the argument made by Linda Sidner, you can come to the conclusion that the second argument is the strongest.