I have mixed feelings about
this article. Although I agree with the author’s stance, I am not quite sure
her delivery was strong enough. Her only reasons why electronic use should be
curbed in public is because it is annoying, and the case where the two people
lost a leg was the last point she made, as if it were her “weakest” piece of
evidence. Because I agree wholeheartedly, that I don’t know a single person
important enough to need to constantly be on a phone with the glazed over
expressions and oblivious to the rest of the world, I automatically agree with
the author. But because those on the other side feel differently, and Engel is
trying to convince those people to stop their excessive behavior, she needed
stronger evidence other than it’s annoying. A lot of people now have little
regard for how someone else feels, probably due to the self-entitled importance
some assume they have which spawn their awful etiquette in the first place. To
convince these kind of people, you need better evidence.
This article was probably
written as a commentary, due to the formatting of the paper, and is also
informal. Engel’ tone is chastising, and almost snippy. “Enough. I’ve had it with people and their
smartphones" (Engel 311). This isn’t formal
language or tone, and the spacing, probably for emphasis, is not formal formatting.
Engel wrote this as a call to action. “We all need to look at our electronic
etiquette.” (Engel 313) The author’s reason for writing is clear, as this is a
subject she has dealt with personally. Nearly all of the evidence consisted of
personal experiences. “On a recent Amtrak trip, a woman sat next to me and made
a call to her friend. . . “ (Engel 312).
However, she did include one compelling piece of evidence when using the case
of the texting driver. Therefore, she relied on ethos mostly.
