Paper Example on Teenagers' Hearing Loss: The Risk of Headphone Use

An article “Against Headphones” was first published in the network times in the year 2011 and written by Virginia Heffernan. In the article, Heffernan presents ana argument that showcases the threats that are associated with the use of headphones and that a large percentage of teenagers suffer a slight loss in hearing a result of headphone use. Heffernan states in the article that the teenagers exhibit what is commonly referred to as the slight hearing loss and that means that occasionally the teenagers cannot make out constants such as T’s and K’s and in other cases the plinking made by raindrops (Heffernan, 2011). The argument made in this text is that of the dangers of excessive use of headphones, the number of teenagers that suffer the consequences stands at 33 per cent.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

After the analysis of the text written by Virginia Heffernan, I would, therefore, make a deduction that the reason for the written argument is to educate and inform. And this is because the article tends to addt5ess the effects that teenagers suffer as a result of using headphones every day while playing loud music. As stated in the article, the ubiquity posed by personal media players- many researchers attribute the increased hearing loss among the teenagers as a result of exposure to sounds played regularly and loudly through the headphones (Heffernan, 2011). To be precise, the human earbuds, do not cancel as much noise from the outside environment as compared to the headphones that rest on or around the ear. The effect of this is that the headphone users play their music at a higher volume in an attempt to drown out the outside interferences.

Therefore, the reasoning being presented in this argument can be concluded to be an inductive type of logic. Inductive reasoning is described as a method that is achieved through the generalization of conclusions by observing a variety of precise illustrations. For instance, in this case, the stereotype drawn by the author is that 33 percent upsurge of slight hearing loss cannot hear t’s or k’s and the ordinary media players play a significant role in increasing the small hearing loss in teenagers from little too severe and that the world war II veterans craved headphones (Heffernan, 2011).

Several fallacies have been utilized in this text, including the red herring and hasty generalization types of fallacies. The hasty generalizations are primarily drawn from a single inference and in this case, it is the headphone attributing to hearing loss as a result of playing loud music for hours every day (Nordquist, 2018). Therefore, in this case, the hasty generalizations were drawn from a single belief. The abstraction is that there is a 33 percent upsurge of the hearing loss from slight to severe, and this is based on the evidence presented in the text (Heffernan, 2011). By description, an argument that is based on hast generalization usually proceeds from precise to general. That means that a small idea bout a sample group is analyzed and after that applied to a much large group, and the deduction is that it does not work. With only a single generalization, therefore, this is the perfect illustration of a hasty generalization.

However, taking a small sample of evidence and consequently applying it to a much larger population is not sufficient to make these deductions as well. It can also mean that the 33% rise in the hearing loss could have come from something else apart from listening in the headphones, for instance, the vehicle stereo which has a more extensive amplifier system (Heffernan, 2011). Therefore, what reason contributed to the rise in the percentage the point being passed across is that there is no significant evidence to support the argument that the 33 percent rise in the loss of hearing among the teenagers is due to the effects of using headphones such as earbuds.

The second fallacy that was utilized in this text was the red herring. A red herring is something similar to an ad hominin which is defined as something that is irrelevant to the article argument and distracts or confuses the reader or the desired audience (M.U.S.E, 2018). A perfect example is two siblings fighting with each other about who took out the trash last and then one of the points out that they did the dishes for the past two days. In the text under analysis, the red herring fallacy is presented through the statement that states that the young teenagers of the modern era have an attention span of hummingbirds. This statement would, therefore, raise further questions such as what do hummingbirds have to do with the rise in hearing loss or the headphones and the teenagers? Thus, in this case, the short span attention has nothing to do with the argument in question. However, it can also be as a result of listening to the headphones as well. For instance, when I am listening to a piece of music on my headphones to whichever music is planning, I am confident that my attention is there. However, the argument could be listening to music for a prolonged period increases the chances of a person going entirely or partially deaf in about five years (M.U.S.E, 2018).

The argument presented by Virginia Heffernan in this article aligned perfectly with the presentism philosophical theory. Presentism has its roots found by Johnathan Clark, a distinguished hall professor of British history at the University of Kansas commonly referred to as the modernism and postmodernism (Woolfe, 2013). According to the philosopher Ted side, presentism is the theory that states that only the present is real. Therefore, a presentist thinks that all or everything is current; however, in general, necessarily it is true that everything is therefore present. In other terms, the past is nor relevant, so is the future that is yet to come is only valid. However, it is essential to note that the history presented in theory is a bit confusing since the past has already happened and tji9s raises the question as to whether the past counts for anything. The only thing about the presentism theory that I do not completely understand is the part of history.

However, the idea perfectly aligned with the article written by Virginia Heffernan and the concept of generalization with the media device and the headphones. That means that there is no time in the past that the headphones were a big issue than in the present and that means that in the past the headphones were not a big problem than they are present. It is also true that in the past, the quality of the headphones produced. That means due to globalization, the tech companies have been being able to modify and improved on the quality of the headphones that were produced roughly five years ago to a whole new level and this makes them louder than the ones that were created back then. Back in time headphones were cheaper and for someone to effectively use them they had to hold them close to their ears however due to advancement in technology all this has changed, and there are thousands of inventions in this regard.

When we consider the headphones as a cause for the hearing problems among the teenagers and the theory of presentism, there are therefore various modifications that can be made to support the argument (Woolfe, 2013). That, in short means that Heffernan the author should have made additional evidence to support the claim that the excessive use of headphones alone is the cause of teenagers losing their hearing presently. As indicated above the generalization of the use of headphones as the only case of the teenagers going deaf is not significant enough. The percentage rise in the number of teenagers losing their hearing could have been contributed by other factors apart from the use of headphones. For instance, playing of the vehicle stereo system louder than usual. Therefore, the argument could have been improved if the author added more research that supports his claim that headphones are bad for teenagers based on the inductive reasoning presented in the text (Woolfe, 2013).

Additionally, some fallacies do not support the argument posed by the authors, and this more accessible for the audience to question the credibility of the text. Another thing that has been noted is that there is a lot of history presented all through the book and this is not necessary. However, it is essential to note that the article was generally informative and a good read; however, the only thing need was additional evidence to support the author’s claim.

References

Heffernan, V. (2011). Against Headphones retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/0 9/magazine/09FOB-medium-t.html

M.U.S.E. (2018). Logical Fallacies retrieved from https://class.aiu-online.com/_layouts/MUSE Viewer/Asset.aspx?MID=12640473&aid=12640477

Nordquist, R. (2018). Hasty Generalization (Fallacy) retrieved from https://www.thoughtco .com/hasty-generalization-fallacy-1690919

Woolfe, S. (2013). Presentism and Eternalism: Two Philosophical Theories About Time retrieved from https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/05/presentism-and-eternalism-two.html